The government announced a defence investment plan with £15bn in new spending. Defence Minister Luke Pollard said the next chancellor must find an extra £4.7bn in the autumn Budget to fund it. Kemi Badenoch claims the plan is £5bn short and that the shortfall was only revealed to Andy Burnham on Tuesday.
Yes carried the day, 18 votes to 13, a 16-point margin that reads as a solid but hardly overwhelming verdict on whether Starmer's defence package leaves his successor exposed. It is the kind of result that settles the question on the platform without suggesting the country has made up its mind.
The real story sits in the demographics. The 16-24 bracket broke unanimously the other way, all four voting no, the only cohort to reject the shortfall claim outright, while every other age group from 35 upward leaned Yes and the small clutch of over-65s went 2-0 for it. Between them sits a genuine generational hinge, youngest voters instinctively wary of a critique aimed at a Labour government, older voters more receptive to warnings about unfunded defence commitments.
The gender split is sharper still: men backed the shortfall claim 13-5, women rejected it 6-4. That gap echoes a familiar pattern in fiscal and security rows, where men tend to take the more alarmist reading of a chancellor's sums and women are readier to give the government benefit of the doubt, though with just 31 profiled voters this is a chamber verdict, not a national one.
Badenoch's arithmetic found a receptive audience here, but chiefly among the older and the male; the young were having none of it.
NO
NO
YES
NO
YES
YES
YES
YES
2 Opinions
Its probably bigger
The Ukraine conflict has clearly demonstrated that conventional military force projection is compromised and rendered ineffective where an adversary can quickly implement new and much cheaper technologies.