brassmonkey_jim

You want a Britain that pays its way — scrap the triple lock, brake welfare spending, push people into work over unconditional payments, and cut the planning red tape strangling growth. This isn't ideology for its own sake; it's a ledger you want balanced, even where it costs your own generation.

You sided with the national majority two votes in three, but the split tells its own story: you're with the country on welfare discipline and planning reform, against it on the triple lock and the two-child cap, where Britain's instincts stay softer than yours.

Holborn and St Pancras backs you almost every time — on planning, on the pension shift, on welfare conditionality — a rare case of a fiscally hawkish voter sitting comfortably inside a famously left-leaning seat.

Here's the tension worth naming: you're strongly right on governance and welfare, yet you go left on elections — compulsory voting, gender-balanced ministries, tighter donation rules. You want a smaller state that spends less, but a bigger, more disciplined democracy to hold it accountable. That's not incoherence; it's a voter who separates the size of government from the integrity of it.

You've never voted on Housing, Health, Defence, or Justice — odd gaps for someone this fluent on welfare and fiscal restraint, and the places most likely to sharpen or complicate this picture.

This is early but already legible — thirty-eight scored votes in, and the shape is a fiscal hawk with a democratic conscience. Cast a few more, especially on housing and justice, and next week's read gets sharper still.