Spargrass

You vote for a more sovereign, orderly UK: tighter control of immigration, firmer justice, traditional constitutional authority and energy security over net-zero idealism. Your rightward instincts are clear, but your record is not a simple small-state creed: you back universal meals, basic income and more help for older unemployed workers, and you distrust policies that leave ordinary people behind. Your phrase “none should get a handout” captures the welfare brake; your defence of “small local companies and one-man-bands” captures the local economy you want protected.

You have moved from The Sovereignty Disciplinarian to a more settled Sovereignty Realist: still recognisably the same border-first constitutionalist, now sharper on justice and more explicit about energy and cultural authority. Welfare has softened from Centre-Right to mixed, leaving a live question about whether your instinct is discipline, solidarity, or a negotiated blend of both.

You usually travel with the national majority, agreeing with the UK on 44 of 60 recent votes, including rehabilitation, school meals and support for older workers. Your sharper edge appears on asylum, Sharia Councils, hate incidents, the monarchy’s Christian role and military service—positions that make your conservatism more culturally assertive than merely cautious.

You are broadly in step with a Centre-Right circle, but not swallowed by it: Slawomir is your ally, especially on foreign policy and energy; Ueva is your great fault line, with economic agreement giving way to clashes over defence and immigration.

Your next 10 votes will sharpen the open thread: how far sovereignty, security and tradition should reach into everyday economic life. Keep voting and the picture becomes truer—not just of where you stand, but of where your instincts are heading.

You vote for a more sovereign, orderly UK: tighter immigration, fewer welfare handouts, cheaper energy and less deference to Westminster’s old arrangements. Your instinct is disciplinary rather than cruel — “none should get a handout”, yet you oppose forced prison labour when it would damage the small firms you call “the backbone of England”.

You have moved from The Border-First Moderate to a more settled sovereignty disciplinarian: welfare has shifted right, while your already-right position on rights has hardened further. The old restraint remains, but it now sits inside a firmer constitutional and immigration outlook.

You are usually closer to the national mood than your rhetoric suggests, joining the UK majority on 49 of 60 recent votes. The tension is that you can stand with the nation on immigration and welfare while breaking sharply from it on renewable energy, Lords reform and the monarchy.

You run with a Centre-Right crowd, but not in lockstep: Slawomir is your closest ally, aligned with you on economy and defence but divided on the constitution; Ueva is the real fault line, especially on rights and immigration.

The whole record now makes the pattern unmistakable; your next ten votes will show whether this constitutional hardening overwhelms your instinct for practical restraint. Keep voting and the portrait sharpens — especially around welfare, justice and the limits of state power.

You want a more self-protective UK: tighter immigration, firmer control of foreign influence, balanced books and consequences for wrongdoing, without turning every social problem into a punishment campaign. “UK cannot finance the world” captures your instinct, yet your opposition to whole-life orders and compulsory work for the unemployed shows a real brake on severity.

You have moved from The Welfare-Minded Moderate into a sharper border-first conservative: rights have edged further right, while justice and welfare are now settling at the Centre rather than remaining distinctly moderating instincts. The shift is real, but not a conversion into a hardliner; you still resist constitutional upheaval and distrust grand claims that government will stop the boats.

You usually vote with the UK’s majority, but your immigration and sovereignty instincts often run ahead of the national mood. You are more willing than most to challenge benefits for foreign nationals, religious slaughter and ECHR constraints, while oddly joining the country in backing reindustrialisation, infrastructure and stronger public accountability.

Your circle is Centre-Right, but you are not simply following its line: you agree with it only a little over half the time. Slawomir is your natural ally on economy and governance, though justice divides you; Ueva is the sharpest clash, especially on rights and the constitution, despite shared economic ground.

Your open question is whether the border-first instinct will keep hardening while your welfare and justice restraint holds. Ten more votes will earn a fresher read, and each one will make the picture truer.

You are a centre-right voter who wants a more controlled, sovereign UK: firmer borders, fewer external constraints, energy realism and less faith in grand institutional projects. But your politics has a humane brake—support for social care, equal-pay protections, and welfare without compulsory community service—while rejecting both firearms and the death penalty; even on foreign prisoners, your logic is practical: “free up some prison space.” The record is broad but still thin enough to call this an emerging worldview rather than a finished creed.

You were The Rights-First Moderate; you have not abandoned that balance, but you have sharpened its edges on sovereignty, the ECHR, borders and national defence. The important continuity is that your centre-right instincts still stop short of punishment for punishment’s sake.

You usually travel with the UK’s majority—32 of 40 votes—yet your strongest departures are revealing: you backed leaving the ECHR, opposed Scottish referendum permission, and rejected leveraged-buyout bans while the national vote went the other way. You are mainstream in instinct, but more willing than the country to put control before consensus.

Your circle is also centre-right, but you are only loosely tribal: agreement sits just above half. Slawomir is your clear ally, especially on economy and rights; PeterHowes is the sharp clash—shared ground on rights, but a serious divide on health and other questions.

Your open question is whether the welfare-minded restraint survives as your sovereignty-first side hardens. Ten more votes will show whether you are settling into a durable centre-right balance or becoming something tougher—and the picture only gets truer every time you vote.

You want a more disciplined UK — tougher on foreign prisoners, wary of unaccountable institutions and protective of public symbols — but not a state that abandons people. Your support for social-care protection and equal-pay enforcement gives the hard edge a humane limit; the record is still early, but the rights-first pattern is beginning to show.

You were The Modest Fiscal Hawk; now you are a broader, steadier centre-right voter, less defined by balanced books and more by who gets to set the rules. The fiscal spine remains, but your newer votes add a striking combination: cultural anxiety and institutional scepticism alongside selective support for social protection.

You usually travel with the country rather than against it, siding with the UK majority on 19 of 24 votes. Even where you break right — rejecting legal control of journalistic codes or backing overseas sentences for foreign prisoners — you look more like a mainstream voter sharpening the boundaries than an ideological outsider.

You run with your Centre-Right circle only loosely, agreeing just over half the time. Slawomir is your natural ally, especially on rights and the economy; PeterHowes is the clear fracture point, with your views parting most often on the wider political questions beyond those core instincts.

Your open question is whether the rights-first instinct hardens into a settled worldview or remains balanced by welfare-minded pragmatism. Ten more votes will make the picture truer — and show whether this steady moderate is becoming something more exact.

Two votes give a clear direction rather than a full picture: you want the Union flag flying and the government legally bound to balance its books, not borrow to spend. That's a instinct for fiscal discipline and unshowy patriotism, not ideology for its own sake — you're voting for a country that lives within its means and doesn't fuss over symbols.

You're no outlier — you agreed with the national majority on six of your eight votes, including on university places and pension-fund investment. But on the flag question you broke firmly with the country: most Britons rejected the idea that removing flags would help, but you rejected it far more emphatically than most.

No circle data yet — you're voting solo so far, which means every read from here is built purely on your own choices, not borrowed from anyone else's.

This is only the opening sketch — two scored votes is a whisper, not a verdict. Tomorrow's ballot lands with eight more chances to sharpen it, and this profile rewrites itself the moment you've cast them.