Debate contribution: Election of Speaker and Deputy Speakers
Debate contribution by Mr Eóin Tennyson on .
- MLA
- Mr Eóin Tennyson
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 7 December 2022
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Assembly Business
- Heading
- Election of Speaker and Deputy Speakers
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4178468
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Will the Member acknowledge that he gave assurances to the public that the payments would come in November? No other party in the Chamber fell for Conservative dishonesty but the party to my right. My constituents are now in a worse position, because they had budgeted on the assumption that they would receive that money pre-Christmas. They are now in a dire situation. That is thanks to DUP dishonesty, and it is not the first time. There has been dishonesty about the protocol, about cardiac equipment, about Christmas trees and now about support payments. When will the DUP accept responsibility for its hand in placing us in this position, in which we are subject to Tory chaos and in which our constituents are suffering?
124 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
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: 0.16 (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).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.93).
- 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
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.11 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.11 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.03 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.23 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.13 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.41 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.16 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.93 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.01 |
| Adopts it | 0.06 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.66 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.30 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.02 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.01 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.01 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 09:33 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.