Motion or amendment: Impact of the Ongoing Increase in the Cost of Living
Motion or amendment by Miss Áine Murphy on .
- MLA
- Miss Áine Murphy
- Party at the time
- Sinn Féin
- Date
- 3 November 2025
- Type
- Motion or amendment
- Business
- Motion · Private Members' Motion
- Heading
- Impact of the Ongoing Increase in the Cost of Living
- Assembly identifier
- Document 457264
Read the official Assembly record Open Data source
Text
Impact of the Ongoing Increase in the Cost of Living
That this Assembly notes that, according to data published by the Office for National Statistics on 22 October 2025, the inflation rate is at 3.8 per cent which is higher than the EU average; further notes that this rate of inflation is nearly double the Bank of England's 2 per cent target; is deeply concerned with the persistent rise in the cost of living and the impact it is having on workers, families and communities; commends the Executive on its firm refusal to impose unfair taxes and charges on already struggling workers and families; recognises that many will face increased financial pressure in the weeks leading up to Christmas and throughout the winter; further recognises the vital work being carried out by voluntary and community sector organisations in supporting vulnerable groups who are disproportionately affected by the rise in the cost of living; acknowledges the ongoing concerns expressed by the sector with regards to the shortcomings of the draft anti-poverty strategy published by the Minister for Communities; and calls on the Minister for Communities to revise his draft anti-poverty strategy to set out what actions he will take to support and equip those organisations and communities dealing with the increased cost of living challenges.
214 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: 0.03 (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 (0.93).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- 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 | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.01 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.02 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.93 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | At or below not-qualifying threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.93 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.04 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.01 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 09:16 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.