rmcknight21

You vote for a leaner, harder state: welfare slashed and conditioned, immigrants barred from benefits outright, the death penalty back on the table for the worst crimes, Rosebank drilled and fracking allowed while emissions targets get binned. It's a vision of sovereignty through toughness — law enforced "even if it conflicts with cultural expectations," as you put it, and no comfort extended to anyone who hasn't earned it.

Last read you were the Grievance Firebrand, all majority-resentment and anti-regulation instinct. That instinct hasn't cooled — if anything it's crystallised into policy: your hardest convictions now sit squarely in Rights, Environment and Immigration, the firebrand turned into someone who actually wants the death penalty, the drilling licences, the benefit bans. The one loose thread survives untouched — you still break left on Elections, a hard-right voter with an odd soft spot for how the ballot itself should work.

You're a genuine swing against the room — siding with the national majority barely more than two-thirds of the time on live issues, happily alone against 70-plus percent majorities on the badger cull, prison reform and the National Care Service.

You run closer to Stocko (allied on housing and education) than to lixhul, with whom you march in lockstep on Defence and Rights but split hard on Transport and Education — a circle that averages Centre while you sit well to their right, agreeing with them barely seven times in ten.

That Elections anomaly is still sitting there unresolved — vote on the next one and let's see if it survives contact with the rest of your record. Every ballot you cast sharpens this picture; the next read, a week from now, will know you better than this one does.

You want a Britain that rearms, drills its own gas, cuts benefits before it cuts taxes, and stops apologising for its own majority — your votes on "second class citizens," indigenous neglect, and hate-speech laws all point the same way: enough with managed decline, start defending what's left.

Last time you were the Deportation Hardliner, hard right but with one soft spot on who holds power. That spot hasn't closed — you're still oddly left on Elections — but everything else has hardened: environment, rights and immigration are now your firmest convictions, not just your loudest ones.

You're mostly in step with the country — siding with the national majority on defence spending, North Sea licences, higher-rate tax thresholds — but you break hard where culture is the subject, going against the grain on the two-child cap, Thatcher's legacy, and inequality-and-democracy questions the nation answered the opposite way.

You run close to DavidPrentice, your clearest ally, agreeing four times in five — but brianmccarthy6btinte is your near-total opposite, agreeing only one vote in five. Your circle averages Centre; you're well to their right, which makes your 65% overall agreement with them look more like tolerance than kinship.

This read gets sharper with every ballot — your Elections tension is still unresolved, and your blind spots on housing and welfare are thin enough to swing the picture. Vote again tomorrow and a truer version of you is waiting.

You want a Britain that fights: NATO-level defence spending, deportation of Shabir Ahmed under reformed 1971 law, an NHS remade on French or Swiss lines, no legal cap on workplace heat, no net zero mandates on councils. Your Britain is armoured, market-facing, and impatient with process — you didn't vote once on immigration, but where you did engage, the instinct is unmistakably enforcement over accommodation.

Last week you were the Even-Handed Reformer, a genuine 3-3 split on thin data. That balance is gone. Sixty-five scored votes later you've hardened into a Hard Right record — strongly right on economy, rights, environment — with the old fairness-and-governance streak surviving only as a stubborn habit of voting left on how elections themselves are run.

You split almost exactly down the middle against the national mood — with the majority on defence and Shabir Ahmed, against it on FPTP reform, the bank surcharge, and war bonds. You're not a contrarian by instinct; you're right-wing by conviction, and Britain simply isn't as often as you are.

West Tyrone backs you almost unanimously — every defence, NHS, and culture-war vote matches your area's 100% split — except on the material stuff: net zero, gas-to-electricity switching, workplace heat, where your area goes right alongside you but the nation splits the other way.

You've never voted on immigration properly, nor on welfare, agriculture, technology or business — for someone this decided, that's a lot of Britain still unmeasured. Vote on a few more and this sharpens again next week — you're close to a fully drawn picture, not a finished one.

Six scored votes, three left, three right — this isn't indecision, it's a voter who judges each question on its merits rather than importing a team. You want cheaper industrial electricity and faster medicine approvals, but you also want student loans reformed and political donations capped — a Britain that works better, administratively and economically, before it argues about ideology.

You moved with the national majority seven times out of ten, which makes you more consensus-minded than contrarian. But look closer: you backed tightening overseas donation rules and a £10k donation cap right alongside the country, then broke from it on the £100,000 overseas-donor cap itself, voting no when most of Britain said yes — a genuine wrinkle in an otherwise agreeable record.

West Tyrone voted with you almost every time — full alignment on Vance, the donation cap, industrial electricity, student loans — except on the overseas donor question, where your area went 0% yes against your own no. Your patch agrees with you more than the nation does, but not unconditionally.

You've never voted on welfare, housing, immigration, defence, or justice — the categories that usually harden a profile into a clear political type. Right now you're legible on money and process, invisible on the fault lines that decide elections.

Ten votes in, six scored — this is early days, and the picture is honest but thin. Cast a few votes on welfare or immigration and we'll find out whether that even split holds, or whether it cracks one way once the harder questions arrive.