Should non-British face tougher sentencing for crimes?

The chamber rejected the idea of nationality-weighted sentencing by two to one, a clear verdict against layering extra punishment onto foreign nationals who, as the background notes, already face deportation on top of whatever sentence they serve. With 52 profiled voters split 18-34, this was not a marginal call but a rout.

The age pattern is the story here, and it runs backwards from the usual immigration script. The only enthusiasm for tougher sentencing came from the youngest cohort, 3 of 4 16-24s in favour, while every older bracket from 45 upward broke hard against it: 55-64 went 1 yes to 6 no, and the 65+ voters were unanimous, all four saying no. The 25-34 group, the largest single bloc at 29 votes, tilted decisively against too, 18 to 11.

That inversion cuts against the standard post-2016 alignment, where older voters have typically been the more restrictionist cohort on immigration and borders. Here it is the pensioners, not the graduates, drawing the line at equal treatment before the law. Gender told a flatter story, men and women both landing near two-to-one against, 32% and 36% yes respectively, suggesting this was not a fault line running along the usual culture-war seams.

If there is a lesson in the numbers, it is that "tougher for foreigners" and "tough on immigration" are not, on this evidence, the same instinct at all.