Verdicts

The verdict

A compromise many voters treated as imperfect still crossed the line: Yes won by 45 votes, while its own strongest reformers admitted AV was “not a great system”.

The verdict

The chamber agreed that the UK needs more homes, but not that loosening the rules is the answer. Further deregulation failed amid concerns about green space, land-banking, quality and where homes are actually needed.

The verdict

“It’s a flag,” said the floor’s most-respected No voice, and that bluntness carried the day: the chamber rejected prosecution, with No winning 548 votes to 416.

The verdict

“Yes, but with caveats” was the chamber’s defining note: it backed nationalising all UK utilities, but demanded safeguards against political interference and runaway cost.

The verdict

The room chose a hard rule: illegal arrival should shut the asylum door, while the losing side supplied the debate’s most legally focused challenge.

The verdict

The chamber backed reconsideration, but the liveliest fact is that its sharpest No voices argued not for inaction but for a cheaper, European alternative: “the scheme with France is still better in numbers”.

The verdict

Voters rejected military action by nearly three to one, but the strongest No arguments did not all deny the abuses; they denied that British force was the answer.

The verdict

“All ‘benefits’ should have a means testing element” became the governing logic of the PIP debate, as a decisive vote favoured changing the system rather than preserving universality.

The verdict

Voters here rejected the jump to ninety, while the strongest voices on both sides kept circling a cautious intermediate limit rather than an open throttle.

The verdict

“Why pay into a private pension just to have it taken off you” captured the room’s instinct: No won by nearly three to one, with earned entitlement overwhelming the case for targeting wealthier retirees.

The verdict

“Why is this even a question?” captured the confidence of a chamber that voted Yes by three to one — though the sharpest No voices insisted housing should follow need, not nationality.

The verdict

Sea lanes, undersea cables and an ageing fleet made delay sound like a security risk, not a budgetary pause: No won nearly four in five votes, with the floor’s sharpest warning that “The first responsibility” is protection.

The verdict

“Our house, our rules” was the mood of a chamber that made animal welfare a hard limit on religious exemption, with Yes voters carrying the ban by an overwhelming margin.

The verdict

People buying private cover got the tax relief, but the room’s sharpest unresolved question was whether insurance frees NHS capacity or simply lets people jump a queue everyone still owns.

The verdict

The chamber rejected the deal, and its sharpest objection was not to cooperation with France but to the arithmetic: “Total waste of time and money,” as one No voter put it.

The verdict

The floor rejected a larger map for policing, and its sharpest line was simple: “Accountability is extremely important & hard to find in large organisations.” No carried the question.

The verdict

“A healthier baseline” beat fears of bland, wasted lunches: the floor’s sharpest objections were louder than its winning side’s slogans, but not enough to stop the measure.

The verdict

Voters here chose longer sentences, but the room’s strongest voices wanted something else: “Illegal migrants should be deported full stop.” Yes won by a clear margin, while No supplied most of the argument and respect.

The verdict

A decisive No came with a simple premise: “It's a piece of fabric with a design on it.” The result was overwhelming, but the argument was less about Israel than about whether symbols can become crimes.

The verdict

Women’s safety and a muddled legal definition did the work: the removal side carried the vote by two to one, while the floor’s most-respected Yes case warned that “biological reality is being ignored”.

The verdict

The room treated a question about an entire faith as a question about social order: a sweeping Yes verdict, even as one of its own voters conceded that “Both the “yes” and “no” cases are correct.”

The verdict

Self-determination met a wall of suspicion: voters here handed Westminster the final say, while the sharpest dissent insisted that “Westminster doesn't own these nations”.

The verdict

No carried the vote, but the room’s real argument was over what “fair” means: equal rates or unequal capacity to pay. The floor’s sharpest No voice put it bluntly: “Taking 25% off a nurse… hurts a hell of a lot more” than doing so to a private-equity boss.

The verdict

Trump’s intervention lost the room even where his destination did not: Yes won decisively, while the strongest voices on both sides agreed that Ireland’s future belongs to Irish voters, not an American president.