Should the UK commit £8.6 billion to the Global Combat Air Programme?

The Global Combat Air Programme's £8.6 billion clears its first hurdle here comfortably enough, 12 votes to 7, but this is a majority drawn from a chamber of only 19 registered profiles — a decisive win in proportion, not in weight of numbers.

No age band broke against the spend: the youngest cohort backed it 3 to 1, the 55-64s matched that ratio, and only the 35-44s split down the middle at a bare 1-1. There is no generational revolt against defence procurement here, which cuts against the instinct that big-ticket military spending is a harder sell to younger voters weaned on domestic-spending priorities.

Gender tells a subtler story: men backed the programme 7 to 4, roughly two-to-one, while women split evenly at 2-2. It is a small sample, but it echoes a familiar fault line in British defence politics, where support for hardware spending — Trident, carriers, now sixth-generation fighters — has long tracked more strongly with male opinion than female.

For a scheme that binds the UK to Italy and Japan for a generation of airpower, £8.6 billion found more friends than foes on this small showing, but the split was never a rout.