Verdicts

The verdict

A three-to-one verdict for reform arrived with almost no opposition case on the page at all, leaving the No side's near-third of the vote unexplained by argument even as the Yes side itself split over what reform should mean.

The verdict

A vote this close was always going to turn on whether clothes are a symptom or a distraction, and the floor split almost down the middle, No prevailing by the narrowest of margins, 74 votes to 68.

The verdict

A modest win for deregulation carried less by weight of argument than by weight of numbers: the chamber's single most respected opinion came from the Yes side, but the No camp actually left more opinions on the page, and still lost by sixteen points.

The verdict

A clear three-in-five majority backed paying farmers more to green their land, yet the most respected voice on the page belonged to a Yes voter uneasy about the scheme's churn — proof the winning side argued with its head, not its heart.

The verdict

A chamber that skews firmly to the accountability side of the SATs argument backed keeping Key Stage 2 testing by four to one, even as its most respected dissenting voice warned that "you never made anything heavier by weighing it.

The verdict

Demolition lost decisively, but not to a rival vision for retrofit — it lost to caution, with the chamber's sharpest lines warning against a "blanket rule" rather than making the case for repair.

The verdict

A vote that barely paused to argue the finer points of Spanish military law landed with force: five in six of the 144 who turned out backed sending in the army, and the loudest dissent on the page was a joke about castle walls.

The verdict

The chamber's sharpest line came from the side that lost: the most-respected opinion on the page, with five times the backing of anything else, dismissed the whole question as "probably the most inane & ridiculous question I've seen asked to date" — and still, by a narrow margin, voters clicked yes to abandoning breakfast TV altogether.

The verdict

The chamber voted down its own premise: three in five said online forums and polls carry little weight over elections or policy, even as most of the debate's substance came from the Yes side arguing the opposite, a mismatch between who turned up to argue and who turned up to vote.

The verdict

Four in five voters here decided that the mainstream media has let influence substitute for expertise, with not a single dissenting argument troubling the page to explain the other 28 votes.

The verdict

A near dead-even split concealed a lopsided argument: almost every voice on the page came from the side that won, leaving the case for a wealth tax to fund social care reform barely made at all, as No prevailed 74 to 71.

The verdict

A near three-to-one vote for drilling arrived on the back of an argument almost nobody bothered to dispute: that importing energy while sitting on domestic reserves is self-defeating, both for the tax take and, in the winning side's telling, for emissions too.

The verdict

Two in three voters here were ready to tear up the House of Lords and rebuild it on county lines with professional reps, yet the sharpest line on the page came from the losing side, warning the reform risked simply stocking the chamber with more special advisers.

The verdict

A three-to-one rout, and one where the winning side did not merely out-vote the other but out-argued it too: the floor's single most-respected line came from the No benches, dismissing the premise outright rather than weighing costs against outcomes.

The verdict

A clear majority backed navy gunboats in the Channel, yet the chamber's most respected arguments came almost entirely from the side that lost — a mismatch that says more about this vote than the 14-point margin does.

The verdict

A narrow 56% majority backed compensating households living beside new pylons and substations, endorsing the principle of paying communities to host the grid upgrades net zero requires, though the margin was thin enough to suggest no great enthusiasm either way.

The verdict

A near dead heat on Andy Burnham's care levy split not on whether social care needs money but on whether the state deserves more of the public's, with No edging it by the barest of margins as voters demanded efficiency before tax rises.

The verdict

A four-to-one rout, this one, with the losing side actually landing the more considered blow: the chamber decided by 130 votes to 31 that foreign workers should not be allowed to go bankrupt before leaving the UK, treating equal legal rights as a lesser concern than the exit itself.

The verdict

The floor delivered a rout rather than a technical verdict: with fewer than three in ten voters calling the 1.5 million target realistic, this landed less as a judgment on planning delays or borrowing costs than as a referendum on Labour's competence and on immigration, the issues that dominated the No case.

The verdict

A near three-to-one margin for recalling Parliament suggests this was less a debate than a verdict already reached, with the tiny No camp reduced to arguing about process rather than the policy itself.

The verdict

By seven in ten, the chamber backed a return to basics, deciding that reading, writing and arithmetic should trump the play-based ethos of the early years framework, even as the sharpest dissent warned against a "rather Dickensian approach.

The verdict

A narrow majority here answered its own question in the affirmative, deciding that Britain's regulatory drift is indeed tilting from "everything allowed unless banned" toward the reverse — even though only one voter bothered to make the case against.

The verdict

Fixed five-year terms went down by roughly three to two, but the debate that actually happened barely touched the £35bn premium of Westminster chaos that framed the question — it drifted instead towards presidents, written constitutions and term limits.

The verdict

A question that split the chamber almost exactly down the middle came out No by the narrowest of margins, with the most-respected argument on the page actually making the Yes case — that a two-tier NHS already exists in practice.