Motion or amendment: Executive Progress - Amendment 2

Motion or amendment by Mr Gerry Carroll on .

MLA
Mr Gerry Carroll
Party at the time
People Before Profit Alliance
Date
15 January 2026
Type
Motion or amendment
Business
Motion Amendment · Private Members' Motion · to “Executive Progress”
Heading
Executive Progress - Amendment 2
Assembly identifier
Document 466389

Read the official Assembly record Open Data source

Text

Executive Progress - Amendment 2

Leave out all after ‘Programme for Government targets;’ and insert:

‘recognises that this failure is not a result of a particular technical matter but has been caused by successive Executives’ failure to break with the economic strategy advanced by the Treasury, including refusing to endorse higher rates of corporate taxes; further recognises that the Executive has repeatedly been a willing partner in implementing the economic programme of British governments; and calls on the Executive to embark on a new economic strategy that doesn’t repeat the same mistakes of the past with a focus on tackling wealth inequality as a matter of urgency.'

107 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Assessment

Not flagged

Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.

  • Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.08 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
  • None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
  • Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.91).
  • No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
  • The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging 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

Probability that each statement is true of this text (0 = no, 1 = yes). A criterion counts as met at 0.60 or above.
QuestionProbabilityMet?
Identity framing0.04No
Sectarian or communal antagonism0.03No
Cultural grievance politics0.02No
Dog-whistle messaging0.06No
Controversy escalation0.04No
Legitimate policy scrutiny0.91Yes
Overall judgement0.08At or below not-flagging threshold
Context and attribution (stance)
OptionProbability
No identity-based framing (chosen)1.00
Reports or questions it0.00
Criticises or condemns it0.00
Adopts it0.00
Subject area (top five)
SubjectProbability
No identity-related subject0.97
Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty0.02
Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues0.01
Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials0.00
Parades, bonfires and commemorations0.00

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 09:18 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.

Disagree with this assessment?

Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.

Challenge this classification