Debate contribution: Universal, Affordable Child-centred Childcare

Debate contribution by Mr David Brooks on .

MLA
Mr David Brooks
Party at the time
Democratic Unionist Party
Date
18 November 2024
Type
Debate contribution
Business
Opposition Business
Heading
Universal, Affordable Child-centred Childcare
Assembly identifier
Official Report component 4656643

Read the official Assembly record

Text

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. First, I will address what Mr Carroll said. I am not opposed to people's paying their tax or, indeed, better services for working-class people and everyone in society: it is just that the Member tends to lean towards pipe dreams without costing them. We heard that in his own speech in his dismissal of accurate figures that were given by the Minister, without actually going into anything other than something that he has heard or seen. I will give way if the Member wants to give us the data that he has.

97 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: 0.06 (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

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 framing0.06No
Sectarian or communal antagonism0.03No
Cultural grievance politics0.02No
Dog-whistle messaging0.07No
Controversy escalation0.05No
Legitimate policy scrutiny0.33No
Overall judgement0.06At 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 subject0.87
Another identity-related subject0.06
Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups0.04
Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues0.03
Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials0.00

Assessed 21 October 2026 at 11:31 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