✕ Vague Attribution [6/10]: ¶4 · The author bases a key comparative argument on personal experience without specifying timeframes, specific governments, or verifiable data.

"When I served as attorney general, minister and latterly as tánaiste, I had opportunities to observe growing divergences between the realities of cabinet government in the UK and Ireland."

✕ Anonymous Source Overuse [7/10]: ¶5 · The anecdote relies on an unnamed UK official, making it impossible to verify and giving it undue rhetorical weight.

"I remember, in particular, a conversation with one of Tony Blair’s attorneys general in which we compared and contrasted the role of the cabinet in the two jurisdictions."

✕ Vague Attribution [7/10]: ¶6 · The claim about UK cabinet practices is attributed solely to an unnamed interlocutor, lacking corroboration or official sources.

"He indicated regular weekly meetings of the entire cabinet were not the rule in London and that cabinet discussion and approval of all governmental decisions was not the norm in the UK."

✕ Missing Historical Context [6/10]: ¶8 · The author acknowledges a time-bound comparison but does not address whether UK cabinet practices have changed since Blair, limiting the relevance of the analogy.

"Of course, my periods in office coincided with Tony Blair’s New Labour governments and with inter-party coalitions in Ireland."

✕ Cherry-Picking [7/10]: ¶12 · The article shifts from institutional analysis to public perception without polling or evidence of actual public opinion.

"More telling than inherent systemic dangers of simultaneously expanding and weakening cabinet as a constitutional organ is the simple fact that a referendum to expand the cabinet would be highly unpopular."