Revere

You have moved beyond simple ownership politics into a harder doctrine of sovereignty: welfare should be conditional, immigration tightly restricted, rights anchored in sex and law, and foreign policy firmly aligned against strategic retreat. Your resistance to the “ludicrous green agenda” is part of a wider instinct for national capacity — homes, energy and defence before fashionable restraint — though your education votes remain a small, revealing leftward exception.

You were The Ownership Enforcer; now you are a sovereignty-first hardliner, sharpened further on welfare, immigration and rights while adding a clearer foreign-policy edge. The market-minded core remains, but it now comes with more willingness to police belonging and punish institutional failure.

You are not simply out of step with the nation: you often join its majority on borders, inheritance tax and tougher public order, yet your overall record is split against the UK as often as with it. The tension is telling — you favour severe discipline for welfare and immigration, but reject compulsory community work for prisoners and oppose some of the punitive rhetoric aimed at criminals.

You run with a broadly right-leaning crowd, but not in lockstep: crooner is your natural ally, especially on transport and housing, while Chelina exposes the fault line, with agreement on immigration but arguments over welfare and the economy. Your circle confirms your direction; it does not fully contain your harder sovereignty instinct.

The whole record now makes the pattern unusually clear; the next question is whether your property-and-market instinct will yield to public control when services fail. Ten more votes will sharpen that unresolved edge — this profile gets truer every time you cast one.

You are a strongly right-wing voter who wants ownership defended, welfare disciplined and energy produced at home rather than surrendered to the “green agenda”. You are tougher on borders, rights and constitutional authority than on every question: opposing the death penalty and civilian gun ownership reveals a controlled state instinct, not simple maximalism.

You have moved from The Property-and-Sovereignty Hardliner to The Ownership Enforcer: broadly holding steady, but sharpening the connection between national independence and private control. Saying no to public water ownership, leveraged-buyout bans and an expanded constitution shows sovereignty matters most when it protects room for markets and authority.

You usually move with the national majority, but your instincts are more uncompromising: forcing long-term unemployed people into community service, prioritising homeless citizens over illegal migrants and resisting climate spending all put discipline before accommodation. The tension is that you backed proportional representation and home ownership as serious concerns, even while distrusting wider constitutional reform.

You run with your right-leaning circle, agreeing two-thirds of the time. Crooner is your natural ally—lockstep on transport and housing, though foreign policy divides you—while Chelina is the real friction: you align on immigration and energy but part ways over welfare and the economy.

Your next ten votes will test whether ownership remains your master principle when it collides with national power, public provision or personal liberty; the picture only gets truer each time you vote.

You are solidly right-wing, but your politics are more structured than merely angry: secure borders, cheaper energy, strong property rights and a constitution answerable to voters. You distrust institutional fashion, yet your refusal to legalise firearms for self-defence and your softer stance on school testing show that control, not chaos, is the point.

You were The Property-and-Border Enforcer; you are now sharper-edged and more constitutional, extending the old demand for control into the ECHR, national borders and cultural continuity. The core has held steady, but your recent votes make sovereignty feel less like a policy preference and more like the organising principle.

You usually move with the national majority, but your instincts are firmer than the country’s on welfare, immigration and climate policy. Your revealing contradiction is that you voted against a referendum on capping net migration even while backing an ICE force and trying to halt demographic change: you want decisive government, not every popular demand turned into a plebiscite.

You run with your right-leaning circle more often than not, but not in lockstep: crooner is your closest ally, especially on transport and housing, while foreign policy divides you. Chelina is the sharper clash—aligned on immigration and rights, but split on welfare and the economy—showing that your hard line is principally material and constitutional.

Your next ten votes will test whether sovereignty keeps outranking pragmatism, especially when border control collides with economic openness or individual liberty. Keep voting: this is already an unusually distinctive record, and each ballot makes the picture truer.

You have hardened from a border-first instinct into a full-spectrum order politics: welfare, immigration, rights, housing and the economy all point firmly right. You want the state strong at the boundary and restrained in the household — deportation, prison discipline and migration controls, but no journalistic code imposed by law and no council-house building spree.

You were The Home-and-Border Hardliner; now you are less merely defensive and more openly an enforcer of social order, convinced that the fabric of society has been badly damaged. The backbone is unchanged, but your newer votes sharpen the line on foreign nationals, welfare access and cultural cohesion — with one revealing exception: you backed land-value taxation, a distinctly non-standard move for your side.

You usually move with the nation rather than against it, joining the UK majority on most recent questions. But where consensus turns softer — religious schools, migrant benefits, early release or foreign policy dependence — you tend to choose the harder answer, while still resisting the death penalty and accepting that the cost-of-living crisis is not over.

You run with a right-leaning crowd, but not in lockstep. Crooner is your closest ally, especially on personnel and transport; Chelina is your sharpest clash — united on immigration and rights, but divided over welfare and the economy.

Your open question is whether your property-and-responsibility instincts can coexist with the stronger state needed to enforce your social vision. Ten more votes will test that tension and make this already distinctive picture sharper still.

You are a hard-right voter whose politics begin with the border and end at the front door: restrict migration, weaken rights-based vetoes, resist state expansion and protect property from regulation. Yet this is not simple punishment politics—you rejected the death penalty and backed stopping water-company dividends, revealing a disciplinarian streak rather than blind severity.

A while back you were The Sovereignty Enforcer; you are now broader and more culturally combative, with immigration, rights and housing forming one settled worldview. The fuel-and-frontier emphasis has become a full programme of fiscal, institutional and social discipline—though your refusal of council-home building leaves the old small-state contradiction unresolved.

You are not permanently against the national mood: you have often joined the UK majority on migration, defence, debt and university merit. But you become distinctly more hard-line when the question touches diversity, social care, pay regulation or public provision, making you a voter who can share the country’s diagnosis while rejecting its remedies.

You run with your crowd more often than not, agreeing on roughly two-thirds of shared votes. crooner is your natural ally—especially on transport and personnel—but you part ways on foreign policy; Chelina is the revealing clash, with shared ground on immigration and education but a serious split over welfare and the economy.

Your next ten votes will test whether your border-and-property instincts can coexist with public provision, local protection and a more interventionist defence posture. The picture is already unusually clear, but every vote sharpens the edges—and makes the next read truer.

Your politics are unusually consistent on sovereignty: immigration control, citizenship obligations, fossil fuels and the retreat of rights institutions all point towards a country that governs itself, spends cautiously and apologises less. You are not simply anti-state; you favour firm rules, basic standards and selective protection, even backing high-street relief and rejecting the demolition of old homes.

A while back, you were The Fuel-and-Frontier Hardliner; you have sharpened into The Sovereignty Enforcer, turning energy and borders into a broader programme of fiscal discipline, cultural authority and institutional suspicion. The newer votes confirm the direction: welfare cuts, a balanced-budget rule, no route back to the EU and single citizenship for new citizens.

You usually move with the country, agreeing with its majority on 45 of 60 recent votes, but your instincts are more absolute than the national mood on immigration, rights and climate-linked energy policy. Your sharpest contradiction is that a strongly small-state voter still wants the state to police citizenship, punish serious offenders and enforce social discipline.

You run with your right-leaning circle more often than not, but not in lockstep: crooner is your closest ally, aligned on rights and personnel yet divided on foreign policy, while Chelina agrees with you on immigration and other questions but parts company on welfare and the economy. That makes your conservatism more economically hard-edged than your crowd’s, not merely culturally conservative.

Your next ten votes will test whether this becomes a coherent small-state creed or a selective, protective conservatism; keep voting, and the picture will sharpen into an even truer read.

You have hardened into a strongly right-wing voter whose ideal UK is disciplined, self-governing and economically unsentimental: lower migration, conditional welfare, balanced books, tougher justice and a working energy base rather than climate targets set above national resilience. Your convictions are especially firm on borders, rights and energy, though this is not pure laissez-faire: you can back environmental farming and a property-based tax while resisting wealth taxes and higher welfare bills.

A while back, The Steady Majority described someone institutional and unhurried; now that cautious traditionalist has become a much more defined sovereignty-and-order voter. The old instinct is still there in your defence of established institutions, but it has acquired sharper edges: reverse immigration, keep the flags, drill the North Sea, and make benefits harder to claim.

You usually move with the country — on 47 of 60 recent votes — but your agreement is often the majority meeting you on the right. You are tougher than the national mood on migration, gender medicine, welfare and climate policy, yet your refusal to scrap hot school meals, impose packed lunches or demolish inefficient housing shows a practical streak beneath the hard line.

You run with your right-leaning circle more often than not, agreeing on roughly seven in ten shared votes. crooner is your lockstep ally on rights and the economy, though you part ways on foreign policy; Chelina is the real test, with common ground on immigration but a marked split over welfare and the economy.

Your open question is whether this becomes a coherent small-state programme or a more selective conservatism: stern on borders and benefits, but willing to protect useful institutions and local fairness. Ten more votes will sharpen that line, and the picture will grow truer every time you cast one.

Ten votes in, the shape is plain rather than sharp: leave the ECHR, scrap net zero, cut immigration hard, keep the bomb, keep the monarchy — a Britain that guards its old furniture while cutting loose from newer constraints it never much liked.

You're rarely the outlier. On nuclear weapons, the death penalty, cannabis, UBI — you sit inside the crowd, sometimes the overwhelming one. The single break is the Lords: the nation voted to retire peers at 80, you didn't, a small loyalty to institutions ageing in place.

No local data has come through yet on your votes — you're currently only readable against the national picture, not your own town.

You've cast real opinions on the constitution and the big culture-war set-pieces, but whole ground is untouched — welfare, health, housing, justice, the economy. One scored vote is not a worldview; it's a hint.

This is day one of a profile that gets truer every time you vote — cast a few more on welfare or justice and we'll start to see whether that Lords vote was a one-off loyalty or the first thread of a real institutionalist streak.