Debate contribution: Programme for Government
Debate contribution by Ms Paula Bradshaw on .
- MLA
- Ms Paula Bradshaw
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 7 October 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Programme for Government
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4579050
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Thank you. I thank the Member for his intervention. The point that I made was that, once the draft Programme for Government is agreed, we should have those specifics. They are what the Committee for the Executive Office would measure, scrutinise and assess. The motion makes reasonable points, but they are limited because we have to think about implementation in the broadest possible sense. As I said, there is no harm in outlining targets for various Departments so that the public may assess them, and, indeed, there is no harm in adding indicators to the process, but they need to be accompanied by meaningful actions and, in our view, by an overarching mission on "Peace and Reconciliation".
117 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: 0.04 (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 (0.73).
- 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 | 0.04 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.03 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.04 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.73 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.04 | 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 | 0.46 |
| Legacy of the Troubles, victims and paramilitarism | 0.33 |
| Sectarianism, hate crime and community relations | 0.21 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:16 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.