Sorrel

You want a more sovereign, disciplined UK: controlled immigration, tougher welfare rules, abundant domestic energy and a state unafraid to enforce its boundaries. Yet your rightward politics is not pure small-state dogma; you have backed social-care reform, regional devolution and the principle that unemployment should not erase a citizen’s vote.

A while back you were The Fortified Sovereigntist; now you are the Border-Energy Dissenter, holding the same broad line but sharpening its institutional suspicion. You have become more willing to reject rights-entrenching constitutionalism, climate-and-development priorities and even stronger Ukraine support—revealing a defence instinct that is powerful, but not automatically interventionist.

You usually travel with the national majority, but your convictions run hotter than the country’s on immigration, welfare, energy and cultural authority. The tension is telling: you vote for rearmament and national strength, yet say no when that strength means deeper military backing for Ukraine.

Your Centre-leaning circle is a useful foil: you agree with Astobie1 most, especially on welfare and constitutional questions, but part ways on the economy. ChrisClarke is the real fault line, with health and welfare exposing how far your enforcement-first instincts sit from the people you follow.

Your next ten votes will test whether this is becoming a settled doctrine of borders, energy and national control—or whether social care and local power keep pulling you toward a more selective state. The picture sharpens every time you vote, and ten more choices will unlock a fresher, truer read.

You are a strongly right-wing sovereigntist: immigration, defence and energy are your immovable ground, and you want the state to recover authority rather than endlessly outsource it. But you are not a pure free-marketeer—you resist indiscriminate housebuilding, defend hot school meals and back selected support for farmers and high streets.

You were the Republican Hardliner; now you look less like an anti-establishment insurgent and more like a fortified traditionalist, sharper on borders, flags, national service and domestic energy. The old hostility to elite institutions remains, but it now sits inside a broader demand for order, self-reliance and national control.

You sided with the UK majority on 40 of 60 recent votes, but your instincts are more combative than the national mood: you would cut migration, rearm, drill the North Sea and put gunboats in the Channel. Your sharpest contradiction is that this hard line softens when markets or austerity are involved—you rejected balancing the books and backed a more mixed NHS.

Your circle averages Centre, so you run distinctly to its right, agreeing only a little over half the time. Astobie1 is your clear ally on welfare and the constitution, while ChrisClarke is the real fault line: elections and health expose how far your security-first politics can part company with the people you follow.

Your open question is whether this becomes a coherent sovereigntist programme or remains a powerful bundle of border, defence and energy instincts; ten more votes will sharpen the answer and make the whole picture truer.

You want a Britain that spends on steel, not sentiment — welfare tightened, immigration enforced, defence funded to the hilt, and grievance politics turned back on itself: you're the one arguing white Britons get treated as second-class, not the reverse. It's a state that polices its edges hard while feeling remarkably relaxed about tearing down the Crown.

Last time you were the Guarded Enforcer — tight, discreet, protective of institutional power. That instinct hasn't softened, but a sharper edge has surfaced: your unanimous hard line on welfare, defence and immigration now sits harder against a genuine republican streak and a vote for public ownership of utilities that no enforcer would touch. The contradiction from before hasn't resolved, it's deepened.

You mostly ride with the country — siding with the majority on three in four recent votes, including the defence spending boost and NHS reform along continental lines. But you break hard from the room on Thatcher's legacy and on abolishing the monarchy, backing positions the nation rejects by clear margins.

You run with Astobie1 three times in four, locked together on constitution and welfare even as economics pulls you apart — the classic hard-right split between order and markets. ChrisClarke is your real foil, agreeing barely three times in ten, the fault line running straight through rights and defence, the two issues you feel most fiercely about.

Sixty-one scored votes in and the shape is already vivid, but justice, housing and immigration are still thin — cast a few more there and this profile stops sketching your instincts and starts proving them. Next week's read will know you better than this one does.

You're voting for a leaner, harder Britain — one where NATO spending goes up without apology, deportations happen without hand-wringing, and net zero targets bend to reality rather than the other way round. Welfare, governance and defence are where you're most unmoved: strongly, almost reflexively, right.

Last week you were the Apology Refusenik — the voter who wouldn't sign symbolic contrition. That instinct hasn't softened; it's found its institutional edge. Voting NO to publishing lobbying declarations shows the same refusal now pointed at transparency itself — you're less interested in performing accountability than in letting the machinery of government run undisturbed.

You split with the country almost exactly down the middle — siding with the majority on half your recent votes, against it the other half. But the pattern in your dissent is consistent: wherever Britain votes for gesture (publishing lobbying contacts, taxing the ultra-wealthy, a bank surcharge), you vote for discretion instead. Your one real breach of ranks — backing tougher HMRC enforcement on small firms' tax gap — is a genuine left-coded vote, and it's the most interesting thing you've done all month.

Sussex Weald mirrors you almost perfectly, agreeing on deportation and defence spending, but splits from you sharply on lobbying transparency — your area wanted disclosure, you didn't. A rare local disagreement worth noting.

Immigration, housing and defence each have exactly one vote behind them — real convictions, thin evidence. Health, justice, education and foreign policy remain entirely unvoted: a hard-right profile with a soft, unmapped centre.

Cast a few votes in justice or immigration and this sharpens from a strong hunch into a settled portrait — the picture only gets truer the more you vote, and we'll be watching for whether the Enforcer holds or bends.

You want a Britain that doesn't say sorry, doesn't hand out childcare vouchers as if they were rights, and doesn't confuse equality with democracy. Welfare, rights, governance — your three hardest convictions — all point the same way: less apology, less redistribution, more self-reliance. You'll take a beaver reintroduction on trust, but the moment a vote smells of collective guilt (forced adoptions, inequality-as-democracy, UBI), the answer is no.

Last week you were the Stake-Holder, guarding what's been earned. That instinct hasn't softened — if anything it's sharpened into something more pointed: you're no longer just protective, you're actively refusing the gestures Britain keeps voting to make, from apologies to top-up benefits, one no at a time.

You split with the nation almost exactly down the middle — siding with the majority half the time, breaking from it the other half, which is rarer than it sounds. When the country swung 62% in favour of an apology for forced adoptions, or 85% for rewilding, you either dissented outright or found the one left-leaning exception (beavers) that proves you're not simply reflexive.

Sussex Weald doesn't just agree with you — on vote after vote it mirrors you at 100%, bar the same beaver and pub-hours outliers. You're not an outlier in the Weald; you're closer to its median.

Sixteen scored votes and not one has touched immigration, housing, health, justice or education — the very terrain where a Hard Right profile usually shows its sharpest edges. That's a lot of Britain's live argument you haven't weighed in on yet.

Cast a few votes in those gaps and this profile stops guessing and starts knowing you properly — every vote you add makes next week's read sharper still.

You want a country that rewards graft and guards its own: cap the benefits, protect British industry, fund defence properly, and don't go soft on symbolic gestures like state apologies when the cheque isn't really yours to write. It's a settled, unsentimental worldview — welfare has a brake, infrastructure gets built with British steel and cement, and history's wrongs are acknowledged carefully, not performatively.

On most things you're not a rebel, you're the quiet majority — seven of your ten votes landed with the national result. But where you break, you break hard: the country voted heavily to apologise to forced-adoption mothers and to cap insurance payouts for the wealthiest, and you said no to both, unmoved by the crowd.

The Weald doesn't just agree with you — it's more uniform than you are. Your one real detour from your own instincts, backing more investment in subsea cable infrastructure, was echoed by your area too, suggesting your patch is right-leaning but pragmatic where infrastructure spending is concerned.

For someone this decided, the silence is loud: no votes yet on immigration, housing, health, justice or education — the very terrain where a Hard Right profile usually sharpens into something unmistakable.

This is early days — seven scored votes is a sketch, not a portrait. Cast a few more, especially in those gaps, and next week's read will start showing you the contours you haven't drawn yet.