mpwban

You want a Britain that owns its energy, taxes its billionaires, and builds 300,000 homes a year with the state's fingerprints on the deeds — a trillion in one man's pocket offends you more than a tax rise ever could. But you're no pacifist about it: NATO spending increases, Sizewell B's extension, even Trump's demand for higher defence budgets all get your yes, so this is a state you want strong enough to defend what it builds.

Last week you were the Devolutionist Hawk, distinctive for isolating your right-leaning instincts to welfare and defence. That devolution streak has gone quiet this week — instead your hawkishness has spread into energy and infrastructure (Sizewell, the NATO votes), while your economic left has hardened further: bank surcharges, corporation tax enforcement, forcing pension funds into British firms. You're less about where power sits now, more about what the state does with it.

You ran with the national majority on most of these votes — housebuilding, marriage equality, the JCPOA — but you split hard from the country on deportation cases (Shabir Ahmed, the Rochdale ringleader), voting no where 80%+ of Britain voted yes, and you rejected the "own nothing and be happy" provocation that 87% of the nation also rejected, so there you're actually in step.

Greenwich and Woolwich mostly mirrors you — net zero, community energy, the Palantir contract, sanctions on Israel all came back 100% in line — but on the two deportation votes your area returned a flat zero, sharper even than you, and on transgender rights it broke against you entirely, the one place your left instincts outpace your neighbours'.

You've never voted on transport, food, technology or personnel — for someone this decided on economics and energy, that's a real gap, and infrastructure votes (the £725bn plan aside) remain thin. This profile gets truer every time you vote — cast a few in transport or technology and we'll see whether your statist instincts hold there too, and whether that devolution streak resurfaces or stays buried under the hawkishness.

You're building a Britain that's decentralised at home and hard-edged abroad — Whitehall stripped of power, Burnham's Manchester model taken as the template, immigration and employment policy pulled firmly leftward, while defence spending gets waved through without hesitation. It's a left-leaning country that still wants to win the Moscow test.

You split almost exactly down the middle with the nation — siding with the majority on half your votes — which isn't fence-sitting, it's a genuinely idiosyncratic map: left of the country on immigration and internationalism, right of it on welfare, where you went unanimously right while most of your side didn't.

Greenwich and Woolwich mirrors that same even split, but the disagreements are sharper than the agreements: your area rejected the Manchester unit and Mahmood's approach outright, yet you backed defence investment and steel quotas together in near-unanimous local company — you're not the odd one out here so much as the one who takes the devolution logic further than your neighbours do.

You've never voted on health, transport, science, or infrastructure — for someone this committed to redrawing where power sits, the machinery that actually delivers services is untested ground. Welfare is your real fault line too: unanimously right there against a left record everywhere else, and worth watching as more votes land.

Sixty votes in and the shape is already sharp — thirty-nine scored ones with a real spine. Cast a few more on health or infrastructure and we'll see whether the devolution instinct holds when it's not about Manchester, and whether that welfare tension hardens into a pattern or fades as noise.