Debate contribution: Election of the Deputy Speakers
Debate contribution by Ms Paula Bradshaw on .
- MLA
- Ms Paula Bradshaw
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 3 February 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Assembly Business
- Heading
- Election of the Deputy Speakers
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4255046
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I am not sure I can follow that. As a fellow South Belfast MLA, I congratulate you and wish you well in your new role as Speaker. I am delighted to nominate my colleague and friend John Blair to the position of Deputy Speaker. I first met John over 20 years ago on a district policing partnership, and I saw then, as I have seen since, a hard-working individual who is committed to making Northern Ireland a better place for everyone to live. For those of you who have served on a committee with John, including the Policing Board, you will know that he is fair and considerate and likes to get on with business. I know that he will be perfect for the role of Deputy Speaker and that he will treat every Member of the Chamber without bias or favour. I ask Members to support our nomination of John Blair and vote for him as deputy Whip.
Goodness, what is going on today? Deputy Speaker.
167 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: 0.03 (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 (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
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.03 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.02 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.03 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.04 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.02 | No |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | At or below not-flagging 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 | 0.77 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.14 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.05 |
| Constitutional question, Brexit, the Windsor Framework and sovereignty | 0.02 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 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.