Stairhopper

You're a right-leaning voter with a genuinely left instinct on utilities, welfare state architecture, and rewilding — you want national utilities back in public hands, an NHS reform plan given room to work, and beavers back in British rivers, while immigration and justice questions pull you sharply the other way. It's not incoherence; it's a Britain that's tough on borders and crime but doesn't trust the market with water, energy, or the planet.

Last week you were the Fortress Progressive — left on economy and justice, hard-right on immigration. That shape holds, but it's sharpened: your environment and energy votes have hardened into unanimous conviction, not just leaning, and your justice votes on "two-tier" framing show the immigration-adjacent right edge bleeding into how you see fairness itself.

You split with the national majority almost as often as you join it — siding with the crowd on barely two-thirds of recent votes. Where you break, it's pointed: you rejected devolution and PR when Britain leaned toward them, and you're cooler on the "danger of right-wing media" question than most.

Wolverhampton North East votes with you almost in lockstep — same call on utilities, the NHS, deportation, the monarchy — the one real divergence being your own harder line on Burnham-era Labour questions, where your patch leans away from you.

You've never voted on housing, employment, or transport — odd gaps for someone this vocal on utilities and the London-centric economy; that's where your redistributive instinct is still untested. Cast a few votes there and I'll tell you whether the collectivist streak survives contact with rent and jobs — this read gets truer every week you vote.

You vote like someone building a Britain worth defending: strongly left on justice, unanimously left on health, energy and the environment, keen on capping political donations and taxing AI job-replacement. But the moment the conversation turns to who gets in, you swing hard right — tougher net migration controls, Brexit reaffirmed, scepticism that indigenous concerns have ever really been heard. Yours is a vision of a fairer, more equal Britain, just one with the gates firmly manned.

You're not a rebel by nature — you sided with the national majority on 21 of your 30 recent votes, from capping industrial electricity prices to opposing a rushed pharma fast-track. But you break decisively from the pack on the indigenous-concerns question, where the country voted 16% yes and you voted no — a minority stance you clearly hold with conviction, not accident.

Wolverhampton North East mirrors you almost eerily — 100% agreement on Rupert Lowe over Farage, on donation caps, on tighter migration rules — but splits from you on Andy Burnham's premiership and Starmer's resignation, where your area went one way and you the other. It's a rare case of a voter and their patch nearly fused, save a few sharp local disagreements on Westminster psychodrama.

You've never voted on welfare, housing, defence or the triple lock — odd for someone this fluent on economy and justice. Fill in welfare and you'll settle whether your left instincts extend to the safety net, or stop at the border.

This is early days — 23 scored votes is a shape, not yet a portrait. Vote on housing or defence next and watch this profile sharpen into something unmistakably yours; every ballot you cast rewrites the read.