cleethorpes_carol

You want a Britain that's fiscally strict but not heartless — one that pulls the welfare brake, means-tests PIP, ditches the triple lock for inflation-linking, yet still scraps the two-child cap and calls out bosses who "make hundreds of times more" than the people who work for them. It's a leave-the-safety-net-but-shrink-the-waste worldview, powered from the regions rather than Westminster.

You track the nation more than you diverge from it — siding with the majority on two-thirds of your votes — but your instincts run harder-edged on welfare than the country's, and softer on corporate pay than the average right-leaning voter. You're not a rebel; you're the version of the mainstream that actually reads the small print.

Leeds Central and Headingley backs you almost unanimously on regional grievance — London-centrism, power to the regions, "ungovernable" Britain — but splinters from you on heat protections and asylum routes, where your area wanted more done and you voted no. Small numbers, real disagreement.

You've voted on welfare five times but never once on health, justice, or rights — for someone this decided on who deserves what from the state, that's a conspicuous silence on how that state should actually treat people.

This is a sharp early sketch, not a finished portrait — thirty-three scored votes in, the welfare-hawk-with-an-economic-conscience shape is already visible. Cast a few more on health or justice and next week's read gets properly precise.