Barry Cowen
The measure only exists where this member actually spoke in the debate their vote belongs to, and where that vote can be tied to a specific question. Both cuts are steep.
| Votes cast | 524 | |
| … spoke in that debate section | 11 | |
| … vote tied to a specific question | 5 | |
| … position stated clearly enough to score | 0 |
The third row is the sharpest cut. A committee-stage sitting can hold fifteen divisions while its speeches discuss forty-two numbered amendments, and the record does not say which amendment each division was. Those votes are counted here and deliberately left unscored rather than guessed.
The same scorable votes, split by whether the member went with their party. The top-right cell is the one worth reading: a stated position reversed while following the party line.
| Voted with own party | Voted against own party | |
|---|---|---|
| Matched their words | 0 | 0 |
| Contradicted their words | 3 | 0 |
Not scored: 6 where the vote could not be tied to a question, 2 where no clear position was stated in the debate.
Valence runs −1 (negative) to +1 (positive). This is a separate measure from alignment above and says nothing about how anyone voted — "the Minister has been asleep at the wheel" is strongly negative and carries no position on the question.
| Model | Speeches scored | Mean valence | Corpus mean |
|---|---|---|---|
| vader | 101 | +0.649 | +0.423 |
Mean tone by topic, most negative first. Topics come from an LDA model fitted over debate contributions; the terms are the model's, the labels are hand-assigned.
| Topic | Speeches | Mean valence |
|---|---|---|
| Housing, rent and homelessness housing · homes · local · accommodation · rent · affordable | 5 | +0.378 |
| Legislation, courts and legal process act · legislation · shall · court · person · information | 9 | +0.422 |
| Procedural and rhetorical filler (low-content) important · like · good · debate · did · does | 9 | +0.437 |
| Climate, agriculture, energy and water water · climate · farmers · energy · food · agriculture | 10 | +0.674 |
| Departmental programmes and funding (diffuse) department · national · funding · new · important · programme | 22 | +0.820 |
Contributions whose tone sits more than two standard deviations from this member's own average. Baselines are per member on purpose — an absolute threshold would just rank people by temperament.
I have old scores to settle here. We live at time of extremes on both the left and right, and they are becoming louder and, frankly, much bolder. Simple slogans travel quickly, unfortunately. Fear and anger travel quickly but governing and legislating are far …
I think the Minister of State and I appreciate her position here this evening in seeking to respond on behalf of the Minister. I appreciate that the Minister of State wishes to relay to the House just the information she has, which emanates from the Minister a…
The political crisis in Belarus continues to pose significant challenges for the European Union. It is apparently engineering a migration crisis on its border with Lithuania, Latvia and Poland. The Belarusian leader, Lukashenko, appears to want to force the EU…
It can be difficult to disprove a motion of no confidence in three minutes listening to the heckling that is going on here. One would almost feel like a contestant on "Countdown". I will get straight to it. The majority of the Opposition is piggybacking on the…
I thank the Tánaiste for his response. He said at the end that he does not believe he can comment much further on the Lebanese authorities' investigation and the recent charging. It is alleged that the five formally charged are members of the Hezbollah armed g…
During the Minister's recent visit to Israel and Palestine, did he meet with anyone from the Israeli Government and, if not, did he seek to do so? Does he get any sense from this trip that, because of the change of Government in Israel earlier this year, there…
Alignment by the party a member sat for on the day, with 95% Wilson intervals. This is the test the measure could have failed.
| Party | Aligned | 95% CI | n |
|---|---|---|---|
| PBP | 82.5% | 68–91% | 40 |
| LAB | 78.2% | 69–85% | 101 |
| IND | 76.5% | 72–81% | 327 |
| SF | 75.8% | 69–81% | 198 |
| SD | 71.4% | 58–82% | 49 |
| FG | 69.1% | 62–76% | 162 |
| FF | 67.9% | 60–75% | 165 |
| GP | 56.8% | 41–71% | 37 |
Members of government parties align their stated position with their vote 9.4 points less often than Independents — bootstrap 95% CI [+2.7, +16.0], which excludes zero. Opposition parties sit 9.5 points above government too, CI [+3.1, +15.9]. Independents and opposition members are indistinguishable from each other (−0.0 points, CI [−6.3, +6.2]). So the gap does not come from having no party; it comes from being in government, which is what a whip effect should look like. Read this as the measure behaving sensibly, not as a finding about any individual.
Two automated methods were built and both failed. What survives is the rule-based layer, which is why the coverage above is narrow.
| Method | Accuracy | 95% CI | n |
|---|---|---|---|
| nli-vs-mover-anchor:deberta | 35.9% | 29–42% | 234 |
| nli-vs-mover-anchor:distilroberta | 11.5% | 8–16% | 234 |
Zero-shot entailment was asked to judge contributions whose true position is known — the member moved the amendment, so the answer is support by construction — and got it right 11.5% of the time, returning "unclear" or "oppose" for nearly everything. A classifier trained on the rule-labelled cases over the corpus embeddings reached 71.1% against a 65.3% majority-class baseline: better than chance, not better enough. Both are excluded from every figure on this page. Only the rule-based cascade, which is exact where it fires and silent where it does not, is used.
Position is read from the member's own contributions in the debate section the division belongs to, by a three-step cascade: an explicit move of the question ("I move amendment No. 5", true by construction); declarative stance phrases ordered so negations are tested first, because "I cannot support" and "I do not oppose" both defeat a naive keyword match; and, where neither fires, a zero-shot entailment model judging the contribution against the question put. Tone uses a separate model and is reported separately. Agreement against hand-labelled cases, with bootstrap intervals, is on the evidence page; no score here should be read without it.