◎ OireachtasDB

← Bríd Smith

Rhetoric and votes

Bríd Smith

Experimental measure. Read the method before quoting a number.
This compares the position a member expressed in a debate with the way they voted in the division that debate produced. It is not a measure of honesty. A member who argues against a Bill and then votes against it scores as aligned; so does one who never departs from a party line they also argue for. Voting against your own stated view under a party whip is ordinary parliamentary behaviour, which is why the whip breakdown below sits next to the headline rather than underneath it. Full method and validation →
—
only 8 scorable votes — below the 10 needed for an interval worth printing
100%
voted with their own party's majority · 439 votes

Why the denominator is small

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 cast448
… spoke in that debate section60
… vote tied to a specific question42
… position stated clearly enough to score8

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.

Alignment against the whip

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 partyVoted against own party
Matched their words 6 0
Contradicted their words 2 0

Not scored: 18 where the vote could not be tied to a question, 0 where no clear position was stated in the debate.

Where the words and the vote diverge

Every case the pipeline flagged, with the contribution it read and the vote as recorded. Judge them yourself — that is the point of showing them rather than only the rate.

2021-06-16 · Climate Action and Low Carbon Development (Amendment) Bill 2021: Report and Final Stages · Question put: · Carried

Read as oppose (cue, confidence 0.90) · voted TA · with their party

I want to speak to amendment No. 19, which my colleagues and I in People Before Profit proposed. The first question to consider is what we are seeking to amend. The answer is that we want to amend the Government's failure to provide a definition of just transition. There is only one mention of it in the entire Bill, even though it is one of the fundamental issues that needs to be dealt with in these provisions. That …

Full contribution → · The division →

2020-10-23 · Health (Amendment) Bill 2020: Second Stage · Question put: · Carried

Read as support (cue, confidence 0.75) · voted NIL · with their party

I sense not just a pandemic, but a panic on the part of the Government. This is all about deflecting from the really deep systemic problems this society is facing. We have seen the collapse of the tracing system with the domino effect on the testing system that we heard about this morning. Deputy Carthy just talked about a complete disaster facing the schools. Evidence was already coming through that they were in tro…

Full contribution → · The division →

Tone

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.

ModelSpeeches scored Mean valenceCorpus mean
vader798 +0.029 +0.423

Which policies move them

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.

TopicSpeechesMean valence
Children, families and young people children · women · young · child · family · families 16 -0.544
Housing, rent and homelessness housing · homes · local · accommodation · rent · affordable 31 -0.357
Justice, policing and defence garda · defence · justice · violence · criminal · gardaí 5 -0.310
War, Ukraine, Israel and human rights international · ireland · ukraine · israel · war · irish 16 -0.266
Cost of living, tax and budget cost · tax · budget · energy · costs · increase 45 -0.187
Climate, agriculture, energy and water water · climate · farmers · energy · food · agriculture 45 -0.024
Health scandals, inquiries and bereaved families hospital · families · family · cancer · children · did 29 -0.021
Legislation, courts and legal process act · legislation · shall · court · person · information 23 -0.007
Irish-language contributions (sorted by language, not policy) agus · seo · leis · sin · atá · bhfuil 8 +0.025
Covid-19 and public health emergency covid · health · public · pandemic · measures · safety 28 +0.038
Party-political exchange (party names dominate) workers · rights · right · sinn · féin · irish 74 +0.042
Health services, HSE and disability health · services · care · service · hse · mental 21 +0.115
Employment, welfare schemes and business supports scheme · businesses · payment · sector · employment · insurance 22 +0.140
Procedural and rhetorical filler (low-content) important · like · good · debate · did · does 73 +0.261
Transport, Dublin and rural development local · transport · dublin · city · public · community 14 +0.322
Education and schools school · education · schools · children · students · special 15 +0.512

The whip, across the whole corpus

Alignment by the party a member sat for on the day, with 95% Wilson intervals. This is the test the measure could have failed.

PartyAligned95% 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.

How the scorer scores

Two automated methods were built and both failed. What survives is the rule-based layer, which is why the coverage above is narrow.

MethodAccuracy95% 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.

Method

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.