Stocko

You want a firmer, more self-reliant UK: stricter borders, tougher justice, leaner welfare, stronger defence and fewer blank cheques for the state. Yet your most distinctive conviction cuts across that grain: you repeatedly favour electoral reform, donation limits and direct accountability, suggesting you distrust political power almost as much as you distrust political permissiveness.

A while back, you were The Ballot-Box Loyalist; now you look less like a loyal conservative voter and more like a right-wing electoral insurgent. The underlying position has held steady, but your newer votes sharpen the mixture: harder on migration, welfare and social order, while still backing land-value taxation, an independent foreign policy and a referendum on EU re-entry.

You usually move with the national majority — 44 of your 60 recent votes with a clear split landed on the winning side — but your reasons are often more severe. You see the cost-of-living crisis as unfinished business, reject early release and want benefits made conditional; at the same time, you resist wealth taxes, fossil-fuel levies and an expanded care state.

You run with your circle more often than against it, but not in lockstep. Lewism is your closest ally, especially on parties and rights, while you part ways on environment; Glasses is the sharper clash, with agreement on housing and justice but friction over education and the constitution.

Your open question is whether anti-establishment reform becomes a governing programme rather than a protest instinct. Ten more votes will test that fault line — and make this living picture truer, sharper and harder to evade.

You want a Britain that's tough on crime, closed to benefit tourism, proud of its history and unsentimental about defence spending — but you don't trust the machinery of power itself, whether that's donor money or devolution deals cut behind closed doors. You're a right-winger who thinks the system needs policing as much as the streets do.

You were the Clean-Money Traditionalist last time out; that spine hasn't bent. If anything you've leaned harder into rights and immigration hawkishness — voting for equal enforcement of the law "even if it conflicts with certain cultural expectations" and against benefits for non-citizens — while your suspicion of political money and process (Elections still unanimously left) hasn't budged an inch.

You mostly ride with the country — siding with the majority on three-quarters of your recent votes — but you broke hard from the crowd on the death penalty for child abusers and on scrapping tuition fees, where the nation went the other way. Your Falklands and fracking votes, though, are pure national consensus.

You run with lewism about seven times in ten, locked together on parties and defence but drifting apart on environment and health. refnation is your real clash — aligned on immigration, but you go your own way on education, the one place your circle can't quite pull you into line.

This picture sharpens with every vote you cast — next time, let's see if that anti-donor-money streak ever bends your line on welfare or justice. A fresh read lands next week.

You want a Britain that's tough at the edges — deport foreign criminals, keep NATO spending up, tighten PIP assessments — but clean at the centre, with donor cash capped and Dale Vince's contracts eyed with suspicion. It's less ideology than a demand for order: the state should police both the border and the ballot box.

Last week you were "Warden of Grimshire" — patch-and-flag defensive. That's still there, but it's sharpened into something more coherent: a hardliner on rights and immigration who is, at the same time, the most consistently left voter in Britain on how elections are funded. The tension isn't new, but it's now the defining feature rather than a footnote.

You side with the national majority most of the time — on NHS reform, nuclear defence, net zero — but you break hard against the grain on banning extremist parties (you say no, the country says yes by two to one) and on marriage equality, where most of Britain has moved on and you haven't.

Grimsby and Cleethorpes mostly walks with you — unanimous on Shabir Ahmed's deportation, on PIP tightening, on Mo Farah's knighthood — but splits from you on devolution, where your area rejects it and you, oddly, don't.

You've never voted on culture, science, agriculture or international affairs — for someone this decided on rights and immigration, that's a curiously untested flank. Cast a few more votes and this sharpens further — every vote you place refines the picture, and next week's read will be truer than this one.

You want a Britain that's hard on immigration and rights-conscious to the point of unanimity, sceptical of net-zero speed and school-based nannying, but also one that strips big money out of politics — a right that distrusts both migrants and donors in equal measure.

Last week you were "The Nationalist," built on protectionism and warship-building patriotism. That skeleton hasn't moved, but it's grown a sharper face: unanimous conviction on rights, energy and immigration now define you more than the old trade-and-tariff framing did — you've hardened into a voter for whom borders and identity, not just industry, are the frontline.

You side with the national majority most of the time (18 of 24 recent votes), but where you break, you break hard: you're one of the minority who think the government's ignored its "indigenous people," and you rejected ID cards with fingerprints when most of the country was split down the middle — suspicion of state overreach beating your usual security instinct.

Grimsby and Cleethorpes mostly walks with you — unanimous against ID cards, strongly against Burnham's "good growth" plan — but you're notably more hawkish on two-tier justice and rights than your own neighbours, and it was your area, not you, that rejected renewable-energy shortcuts by a wider margin.

You've never voted on culture, agriculture, technology or international affairs — a striking gap for someone this certain about rights and energy; four wide-open categories waiting for a verdict.

This is a live picture, not a snapshot — cast a few votes on tech or international affairs and next week's read gets a lot more of you right.

You vote for a country that looks after its own first: tax foreign workers, levy employers who hire them, crack down on illegal shopfronts, rearm properly. This isn't abstract nationalism — it's economic protectionism dressed as patriotism, with vocational training and North Sea drilling filling in the practical detail of how ordinary towns get by.

You're rarely a rebel — you sided with the national majority on most votes here — but where you break, it's telling: you kept the two-child benefit cap while the country's nearly evenly split against it, and you shrugged off continued support for Ukraine when almost three-quarters of Britain said keep going. Your "clearly left" scores on economy and constitution aren't softness — they're scepticism of the financial sector and the Westminster settlement, which sits oddly but honestly alongside your hard-right instincts on immigration and defence.

Grimsby and Cleethorpes backs you almost every time — unanimous on defence spending, the Global Combat Air Programme, and taxing foreign labour — this is a town that thinks like you do, especially on London-centrism, which you and your neighbours agreed on completely.

You've never voted on culture, environment, agriculture, or technology — odd gaps for a fishing and industrial coastline that lives and dies by exactly those questions.

This is early days — 53 scored votes give a clear shape but plenty of white space. Vote on the environment or agriculture next and watch this profile sharpen into something even more unmistakably yours.