Britain needs a written constitution. Yes or No?

Yes carried the day comfortably, 48 votes to 30, a 24-point margin that puts this closer to a settled verdict than a knife-edge. For a question that touches the bedrock of how Britain is governed, the chamber showed remarkably little internal argument once you break down the numbers.

What stands out is the absence of a generational fracture. The 25-34 bracket, the largest cohort at 26 votes, backed Yes by 58%, but so did every other age group with a meaningful sample, rising gently to 70% among the 65+ voters. This is not the young-versus-old split that usually structures constitutional arguments in Britain; here the oldest cohort, who have lived longest under the uncodified arrangement, were among its most willing to see it replaced.

Gender told a similar story of convergence rather than division: men backed Yes at 60%, women at 70%, both comfortably over the line. That the appetite for a written constitution cuts evenly across demographic lines suggests this reads less as a partisan skirmish over Brexit-era sovereignty debates and more as a diffuse, low-temperature dissatisfaction with constitutional drift, the same unease that has periodically fuelled calls for codification since devolution and the Human Rights Act reshaped the old settlement.

For a document no major party has committed to, the chamber's answer was strikingly unambiguous.