Should the government stop awarding large consultancy contracts to meet its £1.2bn savings target?

Yes carried the day, 18 votes to 13, a 58-42 split that counts as a clear but not commanding win on a chamber of 31 — the kind of margin that settles the question without suggesting consensus.

The real story sits in the age breakdown. Voters aged 16-24 broke decisively for keeping the contracts (just 2 of 7 backed scrapping them), the only bracket to do so, while 25-34s were roughly split down the middle. From 45 upwards the picture flips hard: three-quarters of 45-54s and 83% of 55-64s wanted the consultancy spend axed, with the single over-65 voter joining them. It reads less like a debate about £1.2bn of savings and more like a divide between those closer to entering the graduate-scheme-to-consultancy pipeline and those who have watched Whitehall write the cheques for years.

Gender added little texture by comparison — men split 58-42 for Yes, women dead even at 5-5 — suggesting this was an age story first and everything else second. It echoes a familiar strand of the state-capacity argument that runs through Brexit-era rows over "experts" and outsourcing: older voters more sceptical of consultants as a class, younger ones less convinced the in-house alternative would be cheaper or better.

Whitehall's consultancy habit found little love among the over-45s here, even as the young — perhaps eyeing where the next graduate job might come from — voted to keep the doors open.