rachel_sowerby

You want a Britain that pays its way and guards its borders — defence up, Brexit stood by, subsidies for the efficient — but you're not willing to let that discipline fall on the people already struggling; welfare, housing and benefit reform pull you sharply left. It's a fiscally hard-nosed, socially protective vision: strong state, soft floor.

You split almost exactly down the middle with the country — fifteen of thirty votes on the majority side — and your outlier moments are telling: you voted against the crowd on wealth concentration and the cash-ISA tax, both times landing on the tougher, more market-friendly answer than most of Britain was comfortable with.

Grimsby and Cleethorpes back defence spending unanimously and farm subsidies unanimously — you match your area there completely. But on the cash-and-ISA tax, your patch voted overwhelmingly no while you said yes; a rare moment you're more hawkish on wealth than your own town.

You've cast real conviction on welfare, housing and the economy, but never touched energy, transport, employment or rights — a surprising gap for someone this decided about who deserves support and who pays for it.

This is early days for a fuller picture — thirty-one scored votes is a start, not a verdict. Cast a few more on energy or employment and the contradiction at your core — flinty on the economy, soft on welfare — will either harden into a real identity or resolve itself. Come back next week and we'll show you which.