TeaSpoonFairy

You are a Centre-Right voter who wants the UK governed with clear limits, enforceable standards and public institutions that deserve consent. You lean right on rights, immigration, justice and governance, especially where rules, women’s spaces and civic obligations are concerned. Alongside that runs a firmly environmental and economically interventionist instinct: invest in renewables, rebuild capacity and use the state where markets fail. Your politics are less about shrinking government than making it competent and bounded. As you put it, policing rests on “consent and the implicit social contract”; authority earns its legitimacy through even-handedness, not helplessness or intrusion.

From The Green-Edged Conservative to The Environmental Enforcer, your welfare position has crossed from Centre Left into Centre Right, alongside a more rightward run on rights and justice.

In the week of 2026-W33, your scored votes landed Right across five questions: backing restrictions on NHS strikes, rejecting universal basic income and resisting a GCSE overhaul among them. It was a concentrated case for institutions that set expectations rather than endlessly cushioning their consequences. That does not make you indiscriminately punitive. You opposed capital punishment and rejected forced community work for the long-term unemployed: the state you want is forceful under law, not casually coercive.

You usually vote with the UK’s majority, including on political donation caps, Palestine Action’s proscription and expanding renewable energy. Your departures reveal the more distinctive instinct: you opposed legalising pepper spray when most of the UK backed it, preferring public authority over privately carried force; you also rejected prisoner rehabilitation programmes where the country was more forgiving of them.

Your Centre-leaning circle is a partial fit: constancia is your closest ally on defence and health, though you split on environment and economy, while Gastfo is the account with whom you most often part company.

With the whole record now in view, this profile sharpens with every vote; 20 more unlock a fresh read on whether environmental investment and a tighter welfare brake continue to travel together.

You want a firmer, more orderly UK without handing the state unlimited power: tighter borders, clearer rules on gender and public office, stronger defence and a serious penalty for misconduct. But you are no free-market purist—public ownership, climate action, electoral reform and a welfare safety net still matter to you, and your instinct is often “protect the system, then restrain it.”

You have moved on from The Green Order Moderate into a sharper, more rights-conscious centre-right voter: immigration has pushed right, while rights have crossed decisively into the Right and constitutional reform has pulled you further left. The old shape remains—green and economically interventionist—but your newer votes make the authority-versus-liberty tension harder to miss.

You usually travel with the national majority, but your dissent is principled rather than performative: you backed aid, randomised Lords reform and a federal UK while rejecting harsher punishment and indefinite leave abolition. Your phrase about policing a “social contract” captures the balance—firm with institutions, suspicious when they bully compliant citizens.

You sit somewhat to the right of your Centre-Left circle, agreeing with it often but not automatically. Katie is your natural ally, with a strong shared rhythm; Gastfo is where the arguments begin, especially around the boundaries of authority and rights.

Your open question is whether the green interventionist in you can coexist with an increasingly hard-edged politics of order. Ten more votes will sharpen that fault line and bring you a fresh read—the picture only gets truer as your record grows.

You want a capable, orderly UK: firmer on defence, policing and borders, but willing to restrain concentrated power and protect public provision. Your politics refuse the usual package deal — you vote for reindustrialisation, public ownership and climate action while backing tougher enforcement, stronger armed forces and a welfare brake. On capital punishment, your instinct is constitutional rather than punitive: the state should not claim a power it denies its citizens.

You have moved from The Green Reform Moderate to a sharper Green Order Moderate: the green, interventionist core remains, but welfare has edged further left while your constitutional instincts have become more settled. The latest record also shows a distinctive refusal to confuse toughness with cruelty — rejecting execution and compulsory work for the long-term unemployed, even while supporting discipline where you see a public duty.

You usually travel with the national majority, but not passively: the country agrees with you on reindustrialisation, fitness standards and community obligations, while you resist its appetite for religious-slaughter bans and Scottish referendum machinery. You are more institutionally reformist than your rightward lean first suggests.

Your Centre-Left circle pulls you left of your own overall position, yet you agree with it often enough to belong rather than rebel. Katie is your natural ally; StuOH is the real test — you meet on education and welfare, but part ways on constitution and health.

Your open thread is whether a greener, more interventionist economy can sit comfortably beside harder order politics; ten more votes will sharpen that answer and make the picture truer.

You want a more capable, more accountable UK: firmer on defence, policing and public standards, but willing to bring water into public ownership, tax fairly and accelerate climate action. Your politics are less laissez-faire than your rightward instincts suggest — a “social contract” matters, especially when authority seems tougher on compliant citizens than on serious disorder.

You were The Green Defence Moderate; you have held that balance, but sharpened it into The Green Reform Moderate. The newer votes add a stronger democratic and institutional edge — proportional representation, a ceremonial monarchy and public water — while your defence-first instincts remain firm.

You usually travel with the national majority, but your loyalties are not simply populist: you rejected an immediate election, opposed an ICE force and backed climate adaptation over military expansion only when the question framed it that way. The tension is clear: you distrust political overreach, yet still want a state strong enough to enforce order and protect the country.

You sit among a Centre-Left crowd while leaning slightly right yourself, agreeing with them often without becoming one of them. pok is your closest ally — lockstep on immigration and environment, but divided on welfare and rights — while StuOH is the sharper clash, especially over personnel and constitutional questions.

Your next ten votes can show whether reform becomes your defining project, or whether defence and order pull you back rightward; the picture gets truer every time you vote.

You want a UK that is firmer at the edges but fairer in its economics: controlled migration, serious institutions and stronger defence, alongside wealth taxes, fossil-fuel levies and environmental investment. You are not a conventional conservative; your politics are a practical bargain between discipline and redistribution, with a clear belief that the state should protect both the country and the common good.

You have moved from The Green Tax Disciplinarian into a steadier Green Defence Moderate: the old bargain remains, but your defence-first instincts and impatience with social decline now speak more loudly. You still rejected cutting welfare to tackle debt and opposed blaming mass migration for grooming gangs, even as you backed more defence spending and said the social fabric has been damaged.

You usually travel with the national majority, but not passively: you joined the country on HS2, Ukraine funding and regional devolution while resisting rejoining the EU and stronger welfare cuts. Your sharpest tension is that you are right-leaning on immigration and institutions, yet consistently left-leaning on the economy and environment.

You are broadly in step with your Centre-Left circle, agreeing on roughly two votes in three. pok is your natural ally—especially on immigration and the economy—while StuOH is the harder conversation: you meet on welfare and immigration, but part ways on health and rights.

Your next ten votes will show whether defence and institutional discipline keep hardening, or whether your greener, more redistributive instincts reclaim the centre of gravity; the picture only gets truer each time you vote.

You are a centre-right voter with an unusually left-wing conscience on money and the environment: wealth taxes, stronger public provision and cleaner energy sit comfortably beside tougher migration rules, stronger defence and stricter standards. You want a UK that redistributes more fairly without becoming permissive—locally empowered, economically serious and willing to enforce its boundaries.

You were The Border Social Democrat; you are now a sharper Green Tax Disciplinarian, holding the same basic bargain but enforcing its second half more firmly. Recent support for taxing back Winter Fuel Payments and shifting business rates left sits alongside backing an immigration cut, scrapping the EHRC and permanently excluding serious offenders from public office.

You usually travel with the national majority—44 of your 58 votes—but your agreement is not passive. You can back popular housing and devolution while rejecting fashionable appeals to “traditional values”, and your opposition to reversing immigration on racial grounds marks a more measured instinct than some of your harder border votes.

You run broadly with your Centre-leaning circle, but not in lockstep: pok is your closest ally, especially on economy and immigration, while Sally is your sharpest clash, mainly over the constitution. Your own mix—left on redistribution and climate, right on authority—makes you less ideologically tidy than either relationship.

Your open question is whether the green, redistributive side of your politics can keep pace with your increasingly forceful instincts on order and institutions. Ten more votes will sharpen that fault line—and the picture will become truer each time you return.

You are a centre-right voter with an unusually left economic and environmental conscience: wealth taxes, a protected triple lock and investment in greener farming sit comfortably beside tougher benefit conditions, deportations and rearmament. Your instinct is not small government but a disciplined national state — supportive at home, uncompromising at the border, and sceptical of fashionable constitutional redesign.

You were once The Compassionate Realist; you have moved rightward into a more security-minded, border-first version of that same instinct, voting for channel gunboats, tougher drug laws and primary-school standards. But you have not abandoned the compassion: you still back capital-gains reform, social-care taxation and preserving the pension guarantee, while rejecting the demolition of inefficient old homes.

You usually travel with the UK, but your agreements conceal a sharper edge: you backed Spain using its army against migrant arrivals and opposed taxpayer-funded gender care even when the national mood was more permissive. Your real divergence is economic — you are tougher on borders than your left-leaning instincts would predict, but more willing than many on the right to make wealth carry the bill.

You run broadly with your circle, agreeing on roughly three votes in five, but not in lockstep: GaneshSittampalam is your closest ally, while Gastfo is your clearest clash, especially on the constitution. You are therefore a coalition-builder by instinct, though your immigration and security votes pull you right of the average person you follow.

The open question is whether your border-first politics keeps widening into constitutional and cultural hardening, or remains balanced by your tax-and-spend and green commitments. Every vote makes that answer clearer — and ten more votes will unlock a fresher, truer read of where you are going.

You want a Britain that funds a National Care Service through general taxation, protects marriage equality and free political parties — but still deports foreign nationals convicted of imprisonable offences and beefs up the nuclear deterrent. It's not contradiction, it's triage: kindness for the vulnerable, discipline for the state's hard edges.

You're rarely an outlier — you sided with the national majority on 12 of your 15 votes, from marriage equality to nuclear deterrence. Your one real breaks from the crowd: opposing a burka ban and opposing party bans on extremist ideology, both times choosing liberty over the majority's instinct to restrict.

You run fairly close to the five people you follow, agreeing two-thirds of the time. GaneshSittampalam is your steadiest ally; Gastfo is your sharpest clash, and it's telling that the split lands squarely on the constitution — the one category where you lean firmly right while your circle, on average, doesn't follow you there.

Thirteen scored votes is still early days — enough to see the shape of a pragmatist who splits rights from security, not yet enough to know which side wins when they collide. Keep voting; each one sharpens this picture, and next week's read will know you better than this one does.