Voters here backed major constitutional change by 177 votes to 121, but the debate was less a triumphal march than a collision between institutional ambition and practical scepticism. The Yes side won with a broad brief: written rights, electoral reform, a reworked Lords and clearer rules for a devolved state.
Its strongest argument, and the floor’s most-respected Yes case, was that “Government is too important to be left in the hands of” inexperienced politicians, alongside a proposal to reshape the Lords into a smaller, vetted Senate. Another Yes voice wanted FPTP “taking apart” and the second chamber replaced with something more democratic, while others looked to codification for “Future AI” and unalienable rights.
The No case was quieter but more coherent than the score suggests. One voter warned that devolution needed checks; another said the UK’s “bones are fine”, while a weary voice urged ministers to “Stop tinkering and get working”. That was the central disagreement: Yes voters saw structural weakness in the architecture, while No voters saw failures of execution, cost and restraint.
The room’s Yes arguments also ranged well beyond constitutional mechanics, from enforcing British law and streamlining tax law to a cruder intervention about “importing people with an average IQ of 80”. The mix suggests a demand for a written constitution that is less a single settled programme than a container for anxieties about accountability, representation, rights and competence.
The verdict favoured rebuilding the framework, but the debate left the builders with no agreed blueprint.
14 Opinions
This country needs a written constitution. A proper one. A specific set of unalienable rights for every single man woman & child in Britain.
Future AI demands codification
Bureaucrats prefer to mess about with words on paper rather than Just DO Something.
We need to enforce British laws above all others although our laws should be streamlined to stop lawyers twisting meaning.
Government is too important to be left in the hands of self promoting, self serving, inexperienced, incompetents - with eye on next job. Crazy to have front bench of people with little real work experience (& dodgy cv’s.) House of Lords needs reshaping: 100 person Senate, 6 or 7 year terms. Responsible for big departments of state (Health, Work, Defence, Wealth (Tax etc) Need independent vetting & real experience + qualifications - party affiliation separate!
YES Without a doubt.. 1) The whole system of how we elect the HOC (ie FPTP) needs taking apart & something more democratic put in its place. 2) We also need to update HOW we vote, making it suitable for the 21C British publics needs. 3) The HoL needs disbanding & something better & more democratic put in it place. Whilst still keeping it as the safety valve that'll stop bad laws in place.
The UK needs change, but the bones are fine..We have a long standing system, that works far better than people seem to be willing to acknowledge. Modification is needed, but we don't need to rip the whole thing up
Government's attitude to everything that needs improving is to change the structure (largley because that's how management consultants make their money) - start with making what is there already work better, or just work. Stop tinkering and get working.
The reason I voted no is devolution is a great idea but it needs checks. We here in Scotland have seen devolution being used to force constitutional change. Thankfully we voted No and remained in the UK. David Cameron did not put checks in place such as 80% for change needed. In my opinion what we have constitutionally works well. What does need changing is the House of Lords and local government.
How much is this going to cost us? Just make sure the House of Lords is filled with people who are capable and willing to do the right thing