Wass

You want a Britain that spends to fix things — social care pay deals, UBI, solar mandates on new homes, heat pumps subsidised into being — while tightening the machinery of democracy itself: PR-flavoured instincts, party funding, election reform all read strongly left. But immigration is the one place your left instincts vanish entirely; you voted for significant reductions without hesitation, a hard right turn inside an otherwise generous worldview.

Since your last read as the Constitutional Collectivist, the institutional core has held — you're still the voter who trusts electoral machinery and devolved power over Westminster tidiness. What's sharpened is the redistributive spine: welfare, housing and economy have all hardened clearly left, while the old law-and-order edge has narrowed to just Justice — you're less "law-and-order collectivist" now, more "welfare-state realist" with an immigration exception that hasn't softened at all.

You split almost down the middle with the country — siding with the majority on two in three recent votes — but your dissents are pointed: you'd keep nuclear weapons and stay out of the EU alongside the crowd, yet you broke from a NHS-abolition landslide-adjacent consensus on Starmer's record, calling it a job well done when most of Britain disagreed.

You run with your five followed accounts seven times in ten, tightest with Geoff on energy and party politics, loosest with peter_snafu, who you agree with barely four times in ten — a real fault line worth naming next time it surfaces.

This read only gets sharper the more you vote — especially on that immigration exception, still unresolved and worth watching. Next week's version will know you better than this one does.

You want a Britain that rebuilds its public institutions — a National Care Service, rent controls, decent homes for renters, PR to replace FPTP — while keeping the state's sharper edges: more police powers, tighter PIP assessments, right-to-work checks. This isn't muddle, it's a coherent vision: a bigger, fairer, more accountable state that still expects order in return.

Last week you were the Early Days Collectivist, sketched from four thin votes on housing and science. Sixty extra votes later, that instinct has hardened into something structural — your strongest convictions now sit in elections, parties and the constitution, all "strongly left." You've gone from a housebuilder's sympathies to a reformer's programme: cap political donations, scrap FPTP, devolve power, even back Scottish independence.

You split almost exactly down the middle with the national mood — siding with the majority on 14 of your last 30 scored votes. But where you diverge, it's pointed: Britain overwhelmingly wanted higher NATO spending and 3.5% GDP defence commitments; you voted no both times, and so did your constituency's one other voter each time.

Godalming and Ash tracks you almost perfectly here — unanimous with you on PR, devolution, rent controls, the Care Service — though the sample is a single voter per vote, so treat this as a shared instinct rather than proof of a town.

You've never voted on energy, technology, employment or international affairs — odd omissions for someone this fluent in constitutional plumbing. Vote on one of those next and the picture sharpens considerably.

This profile updates with every vote you cast — fill in energy or international policy and we'll tell you, plainly, whether the collectivist instinct holds under new weight.

Four scored votes, three of them clearly left: back social rented housebuilding, protect UKRI's scientific standing, distrust the car as a default. The Britain you're sketching is one that builds and funds rather than shrugs and privatises — though a lone vote against reversing the student loan freeze shows you're not reflexively generous with every ledger line.

You're often out of step with the national mood rather than riding it — Britain said cars are practical, you said no; Britain leaned toward reversing the loan freeze, you held the harder line. Yet you still landed with the majority on 7 of 10 votes overall, so this isn't contrarianism, more a habit of quietly disagreeing on the specifics that matter to you.

Your area is a strange mirror here — a string of single-vote samples that agree with you on UKRI, electricity strategy and housebuilding, but that's one neighbour's ballot each time, not a town's verdict. Worth watching whether Godalming and Ash actually shares your instincts once more locals show up.

Ten votes cast, but only four carry political weight, and entire fields — welfare, immigration, defence, justice, the economy — sit untouched. On a profile this thin, the next handful of votes could easily tip the whole picture; right now you're a left lean built on a narrow foundation.

This is early days — four data points sketching a shape, not a verdict. Vote on welfare or immigration next and watch this profile sharpen into something unmistakably yours; we'll be back next week with the fuller version.