TomLinnane

Your politics are anchored in rights, public provision, education and climate action: a strong welfare state, affordable homes and a serious energy transition. But you are no automatic progressive—supporting tighter scrutiny of benefits, permanent bans for criminal politicians and a more reform-minded NHS reveals a disciplinarian streak beneath the egalitarianism.

You were The Welfare-State Renovator; you have not abandoned that project, but you have become more exacting about who and what the state should trust. The newer votes sharpen the contradiction: still backing social care, winter-fuel redistribution and a jobless person’s right to vote, while demanding legitimacy, standards and consequences.

You sit against the national grain as often as with it, especially on nuclear power, rearmament, national history and the death penalty—but you are not reflexively oppositional. Your support for Ukraine, regional power, first-time buyers and a codified rights-based constitution shows a reforming left that can join the country when the case feels practical rather than tribal.

You run with your circle only part of the time: WildRover is your clear ally, while Slawomir is your sharpest clash, despite common ground on Other. You lock together on neither Rights nor Economy, suggesting your independence is strongest where your deepest principles matter most.

The open question is whether your left economics can keep coexisting with your harder line on health, accountability and institutional reform. Ten more votes will sharpen that boundary—and make this living picture truer each time you return.

You vote for wealth taxes, stronger unions, rent controls, free university tuition and a rights-first politics, with your strongest convictions around education, energy and civil liberties. But you are no keeper of every sacred cow: on health, you lean right, backing NHS reform where other countries deliver better outcomes, and you still make room for national service and practical defence.

You were The Unionist Radical; now you are a more expansive Welfare-State Renovator, less defined by constitutional loyalty and more by the question of what actually works. The old “pay for it, doubt the wars” tension remains, but your recent opposition to rearmament, gunboats and North Sea drilling makes the dovish, green edge sharper.

You are almost perfectly split from the national mood: the UK majority has often backed nuclear power, rearmament and oil drilling where you chose restraint, while you hold firm on welfare, climate and rights. Your vision is not retreat but investment — public goods, stronger protections and an energy transition the country is still reluctant to fund.

You run left of your Centre-leaning circle, agreeing most with WildRover while clashing hardest with Slawomir. Welfare keeps you aligned with Slawomir, but rights and personnel expose the deeper divide: you trust solidarity more than social discipline.

Your open question is whether evidence-led reform can coexist with your instinct to protect the public realm. Ten more votes will sharpen that fault line — and make this living picture truer.

You want a Britain that taxes wealth harder, funds the state generously, and treats rights as settled — marriage equality, trans rights, PR reform, all yes without hesitation. But you pair that with a hawkish instinct: NATO spending up, Scottish independence firmly no. This isn't soft-left drift; it's a left that still believes in the state's hard edges — its army, its Union, its enforcement powers.

Last week you were "The Fair Votes Realist" — hawkish on defence budgets, unsentimental on welfare. That's sharpened, not shifted: you're now clearly dovish on the wars themselves (opposing Iran strikes, opposing Trump's NATO demands, rejecting war bonds) while still voting yes to raw defence spend. The contradiction you carried last week — pay for the army, doubt its wars — has only gotten more pointed.

You split with the country almost evenly, siding with the majority on two in three recent votes — but your dissents are telling: you rejected planning deregulation Britain wanted, and doubted NATO pressure the nation largely welcomed.

Southgate and Wood Green mostly mirrors you back — near-unanimous locally on the bank surcharge, community energy, marriage equality — making you less an outlier at home than you might feel nationally.

You've never voted on business, employment or technology — for someone this decided on tax and welfare, the world of work is a curious silence. Vote a few more of these and the picture sharpens further — that's the whole point of coming back.

You're a left-leaning voter whose conviction isn't equality-in-the-abstract but equality-through-process — PR to fix polarisation, worry about right-wing media dominance, distrust of a two-tier justice narrative. Yet you're no soft touch: you backed 3% defence spending, opposed cutting it for welfare, and want fingerprint ID cards. This is a Britain that redistributes power but still locks its front door.

You split almost evenly with the national mood — agreeing on beavers, utilities failure and football's moneyed takeover, but breaking hard from the 92% who'd cut defence for welfare, and from the majority who want a written constitution. You're a coalition voter, not a tribal one.

Southgate and Wood Green mostly moves with you — unanimous on PR, devolution, ID cards, defence spending — making you less an outlier locally than a fairly representative voice of it, though you diverged sharply on the monarchy, where your area voted to keep it and so did you, against the national tide.

You've never voted on immigration, housing or employment — striking gaps for someone this engaged on rights and justice, and the next real test of whether your left convictions hold under pressure.

This is early-shape stuff — 33 scored votes give a strong outline but not the full portrait. Cast a few more on immigration or housing and we'll see whether the Fair Votes Realist holds, or splits down its own fault line.