Motion or amendment: Cost of Living Crisis - Amendment 1
Motion or amendment by Miss Nuala McAllister on .
- MLA
- Miss Nuala McAllister
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 1 August 2022
- Type
- Motion or amendment
- Business
- Motion Amendment · Private Members' Motion · to “Cost of Living Crisis”
- Heading
- Cost of Living Crisis - Amendment 1
- Assembly identifier
- Document 379744
Read the official Assembly record Open Data source
Text
Cost of Living Crisis - Amendment 1
Insert after the first ‘Ministers’: ‘; in order to help deliver better government and restore public confidence in these institutions, supports the introduction of reforms, including reforming the appointment of the First Minister and deputy First Minister to enable the next largest party to nominate if the largest party of a political designation refuses its entitlement to nominate; further supports the replacement of cross-community voting with a weighted majority to remove a veto to the establishment of an Assembly and Executive to ensure that any constant potential blockage to governing is removed;’
99 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Also tabled by
Each MLA who tabled or co-signed this item has their own record:
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not qualifying”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.23 (qualifying needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not qualifying).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.77).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.95).
- Subject area: Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty.
- The overall probability was at or below the not-qualifying threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.22 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.04 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.03 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.06 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.11 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.77 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.23 | At or below not-qualifying threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.95 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.05 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.50 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.29 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.17 |
| Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice) | 0.02 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.02 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 08:43 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9. The text was identical to an already-assessed record, so the same answers were reused.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reviews every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.