RhysJones

You're firmly on the right — no rewilding, no UBI, no inequality-fixing crusades, no extra child benefit — but the shape of your conviction is really a welfare brake: help should be earned, not expanded, and the state should stop reaching for its wallet as the answer to everything.

On rewilding, on the £2500 child benefit boost, on Burnham's "good growth" pitch — you were the minority voice against runs of national opinion that leaned the other way, sometimes heavily. You're not chasing consensus; you're comfortable being the one who says no when the room says yes.

Your local area is barely a sample — mostly single votes each — but where it does register, it mirrors you almost perfectly: no to rewilding, no to UBI, no to the extra childcare cash. The exception is Gibraltar's Schengen deal, where both you and your patch broke right and voted yes together, a rare moment of alignment on something international rather than domestic.

Seven scored votes is a start, not a verdict — you've never touched immigration, housing, crime, tax, or defence, the very terrain where a "hard right" label usually gets tested and proven. Right now you're hard right on welfare by default; whether that holds on the sharper fault lines is still unwritten.

This is early days — a sketch, not a portrait. Cast a few votes on immigration or tax and the picture stops being "strongly right on welfare" and starts becoming something with real edges. We'll be here to redraw it the moment you do.