Debate contribution: Election of Speaker and Deputy Speakers

Debate contribution by Mr John Blair on 7 December 2022.

MLA: Mr John Blair
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 4178601

Text

I will try to keep my remarks relatively short, given what we have heard already, especially in relation to the cost-of-living crisis. There is little to be added on the core issues of the debate. We have already thoroughly rehearsed the frankly devastating impacts that again failing to elect a Speaker will have on our public services, on the public purse and on the lives of each of our constituents in the midst of a cost-of-living crisis, as well as on their confidence in how this institution supports and delivers for them. To be clear, Acting Speaker, the vote that will take place at the end of the debate is not a vote on who will sit in the Chair that you currently occupy. Bluntly, my party colleagues and I do not care who that will be, although we know that two well-qualified candidates have been put forward; we care only that someone occupies the Chair so that we can reconvene Assembly business, conduct the jobs that we were elected to do and serve our constituents to our fullest ability. Instead, the vote at the end of the debate will be on whether Members care about the issues affecting our constituents and whether they care enough to prioritise those issues over party political interest and protest. I was going to say that it would be shameful to prioritise party political interest over a health service that is collapsing around us and a climate crisis that is no longer a looming threat but is here and happening now, but I am starting to believe that the party to my right — the DUP — is incapable of shame. The rest of us are aware of the global and local implications and repercussions of the issues that I have mentioned, and we want to get on with it.
As with every other recall, we know what the outcome is likely to be, and it is utterly depressing. To put it in context, I have been a Member of the Assembly for over four years. I have been afforded the opportunity to debate in the Chamber and scrutinise in Committee for a little over two years, and therein lies the problem. We should be looking urgently at the reform of these institutions. I am not going to go into the detail of that today except to reiterate my and my party colleagues' strong commitment to allow all parties in the Chamber to govern if they wish to do so. That is by far the best alternative to the current arrangements of recurring collapse and chaos. I would prefer that to be done on an inclusive basis, of course, but the point is that some parties that have had the opportunity to take their seats in Government have failed to do so. In the new arrangements, they could self-exclude if they so wish, but they should never ever be able to prevent those of us who are willing to govern and deliver from doing so. It is called choice, and it is fair. I close by asking my South Antrim political colleagues — those in the DUP in particular — to reflect on their position, and I appeal to them to do so. That is what I would advise, and I issue that advice on the basis of very recent conversations — as recently as this morning, in some cases — with food banks, businesses, schools, youth service providers, which were mentioned earlier, NHS patients on waiting lists and other constituents. Their need is greater than any need to use them as leverage for political point-scoring or protest.

604 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: 0.09 (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 (0.96).
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.
Question	Probability	Met?
Identity framing	0.08	No
Sectarian or communal antagonism	0.11	No
Cultural grievance politics	0.02	No
Dog-whistle messaging	0.20	No
Controversy escalation	0.06	No
Legitimate policy scrutiny	0.33	No
Overall judgement	0.09	At or below not-flagging threshold

Context and attribution (stance)
Option	Probability
No identity-based framing (chosen)	0.96
Reports or questions it	0.00
Criticises or condemns it	0.02
Adopts it	0.02

Subject area (top five)
Subject	Probability
No identity-related subject	0.75
Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty	0.16
Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations	0.07
Another identity-related subject	0.02
Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials	0.00

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.

Challenge this classification