Is the NHS making meaningful progress on waiting lists?
The verdict
The list budged; the chamber did not: No won by nearly two to one, while its best-respected voice warned that “full recovery to pre-pandemic waiting list sizes would take a very long time.”
Should the UK armed forces be deployed to protect national borders and assist checks at airports & coach, railway hubs?
The verdict
Voters here chose deployment, but the sharpest No line said service personnel join “to protect our country, not to be security guards” — a winning decision with its best argument on the other side.
Will Labour still be in power in 2030 to enforce the ban on new petrol and diesel cars?
The verdict
“Badly phrased question” was the floor’s sharpest diagnosis: the room voted against it, but the argument was less about petrol and diesel than whether Labour can survive the next election — and sounded grim about its prospects.
Should UK leave ECHR and withdraw UN Refugee Conventions?
The verdict
A revolt against judges carried the room, but the floor’s sharpest lines came from those asking who would surrender rights “because of <checks notes> small boats?”
Should the government reverse the levy on international student fees?
The verdict
University finance lost the argument to border anxiety: the floor’s sharpest No case called international students “regular visa overstayers”.
Does Andy Burnham's new government role for wildfires set the right spending priority?
The verdict
A fire minister was cast as either a practical answer to wildfires or “gesture politics”; the chamber narrowly chose No, with scepticism about what the role would actually change.
Is DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) ultimately responsible for Jason Arday's death?
The verdict
Cambridge’s alleged failure to verify Arday’s appointment became a proxy for a wider argument about DEI, with Yes prevailing narrowly; its sharpest voices blamed a system that had “propped up this guy”.
Should UK residents be allowed to carry firearms for self-defence?
The verdict
Voters reached for America as a warning, not a model: No won nearly three to one, while even one Yes case conceded that more guns could make things worse.
Should welfare benefits for working-age claimants be cut?
The verdict
The chamber backed cuts to working-age welfare, even as the floor’s sharpest No voice warned: “Out of work benefits are already way below minimum wage.”
Does Scotland benefit from being part of the UK?
The verdict
“The question should be does the UK benefit from Scotland being a part of it,” one voter wrote; the debate then delivered an emphatic answer, with every posted argument coming from the Yes side.
Have consecutive UK governments harmed SMEs on purpose?
The verdict
“There may be no direct evidence, but there are circumstantial ones”: that was the room’s sharpest instinct as Yes won by eight points, treating accumulated harm as evidence of intent.
Should Western societies limit tolerance of intolerant ideologies to protect their culture?
The verdict
“We should not tolerate the intolerant” was the winning instinct, though the floor’s sharpest warning came from a No voter about far-right violence endangering communities.
Should the government hold a binding referendum on capping net migration?
The verdict
“Referendums are blunt instruments” came from the losing side, which supplied the room’s sharpest case even as the debate sent a binding vote on a migration cap through.
Is the climate change narrative a method to hinder capitalism?
The verdict
“The only winner will be China” was the Yes camp’s warning; No won with a clear majority, but the debate’s real divide was over whether policy’s economic effect proves its intent.
Projections estimate decline of share White British from ~73% (2025) to ~57% in 2050, should we try to stop it?
The verdict
The room chose to try to arrest the projected demographic shift, yet its strongest Yes case insisted: “This isn’t about race, it’s about integration and culture.”
Should UK banks be required to ease restrictions on cryptocurrency firms?
The verdict
Crypto firms found no banking welcome in this room: No carried the vote by two to one, while the winning case rested on claims that crypto “props up illegal trade” and involves “to many dodgy characters”.
Should Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor not receive a state funeral as planned?
The verdict
The chamber rejected a royal ceremonial send-off for Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor; its sharpest case was about equal treatment, not a settled finding of guilt: “many have and have not been stripped of titles.”
Did the major parties make a mistake in not contesting today's Clacton By-election?
The verdict
“They bottled it” was the sharpest charge in a close Clacton verdict, where the major parties’ absence narrowly survived the attack.
Is the UK's parliamentary democracy a democracy?
The verdict
“Wheeler dealing behind scenes” was the room’s bleakest shorthand: No narrowly carried the verdict, in a debate where the losing Yes side offered the clearest defence of the machinery.
Should we stop SATs testing for Primary School children?
The verdict
Keeping SATs carried the day, but the room’s strongest reformers argued beyond abolition: “Education should be a joy never a chore”, while the winning side mostly defended the tests as a necessary check.
Should the government strengthen the Zero Emission Vehicle mandate to reach net zero faster?
The verdict
With every argument coming from No voters, the chamber rejected a stronger mandate by two to one. The floor’s sharpest case called net zero “economic and industrial suicide”.
Did Keir Starmer leave the UK in a better place than he found it?
The verdict
Not one Yes voter left an argument on the page: the chamber’s clearest verdict was also its quietest case.
Should a UK ICE force be formed?
The verdict
An ICE-style force won support, but the floor’s sharpest formulation was a warning against copying America: “Yes - but just don't call it that.”
Should the UK create a new legal right to protect people's image, voice and likeness from AI replicas?
The verdict
“It’s that simple” was the chamber’s bluntest case for protecting people from AI replicas; Yes won by more than four to one, while every written contribution backed a new right.