Did we call it right on the GST promise breakers?Cast your vote now.

We would have effectively have repaired the damage caused to our public finances by Zero-10. We would probably not need a GST.

In February he told the States that corporate tax reform and Pillar Two would have done the job without a GST. That is the pledge's own logic, in his words.

We need not speculate, we will know by the middle of next year when most of the Pillar Two receipts will come in.

In July he said when the Pillar Two answer would be known. On 30 September he voted against Amendment 45, which would have waited for it (lost 18 to 21), and on 2 October he voted for GST.

But this is going to require a little bit more honesty with the community, and I do not think we have been very honest in the run up to this

In July Montague conceded that the case had not been put honestly to the community. That is the second of his own conditions, unmet, by his own account.

I am not saying that everyone is suddenly, ‘Oh, yes, I am on board’; that is certainly not the case.

He accepted that explaining the package had not brought everyone round. He then voted against both referendum amendments (15 July and 30 September), which were the two chances to test public support.

I believe that GST Plus is, to most people in this Island, the more fair option.

In February he called GST Plus the fairer option. That is why we read the pledge as conditional acceptance and not opposition, and why the conditions are the test.

To me it is lazy, regressive and it detracts from one of our Unique Selling Points: no VAT or consumer-based tax. Most do not want it and more importantly are willing to pay in other, fairer ways.

The pledge repeats a view he stated in the chamber in 2023, which is why we read "generally oppose" as a settled position.

But I read a little bit deeper and I was buoyed up by 4(b) in that the levy could differentiate according to the size or scale of the undertaking.

His stated reason for voting to scrap GST+ on 16 July was the design of the corporate levy in Amendment 14. That vote is the real act in line with the pledge.

Effectively, as other people have said, we have had a referendum already. The people have put us here to make decisions, to do our job. Let us get on with it and not delay any further.

The record also holds the counterpoint. On 15 July he moved to stop the GST referendum amendment being debated (lost 18 to 19) and said this. It is one reason the verdict is Mixed and not Kept.

Obviously, the attraction is we do not go through the palaver of the GST, the setting up, the costs, etc., and there are alternatives. What I do like is there are some solutions there and ideas about raising income

On 16 July Williams spoke for Amendment 14, which dropped GST and looked for other income. It is the vote that fits the first half of his pledge.

Mindful that we are next month about to ask the public of Guernsey to pay more tax overall, it is a reasonable, legitimate public expectation that all States’ Committees and all senior civil servants rein in their spending and staff numbers

The second half of the pledge was "spending efficiencies". In June he told the States that more tax needed visible restraint from committees and senior civil servants.

…when it comes to voting in the summer, would like to have all of the information in front of me, all of the options, so that I can make a properly informed decision that does go with my manifesto promises and pledges

In February she said her summer vote would follow her "manifesto promises and pledges".

This whole debate for me has always been about sequencing.

In July she named the test herself.

…and by that I mean getting the house in order, doing all the things we need to do first before asking our community to pay a consumption tax.

She defined it as reform before the tax, which is the order in her pledge.

This amendment appears to do what I would very much like to do, which is target other areas first, basically, apart from the people.

She said Amendment 14 did what she wanted and still voted against it, citing "process risk". On 2 October she voted against the final package, the only deputy of the nine to do so.

…but once we have that restructure I believe that we should be able to have a more transparent and better communicated process with the public.

On 30 January she placed the civil service restructure in the future. It is the clearest line in Hansard on the second of her three tests. It was still under way on 19 September, when Deputy Laine told the Guernsey Press that the terms of reference he had asked for had not appeared.

So in not having those Committee work plans in this debate I feel we might have swung the pendulum a bit too far.

The first test was a cohesive Government Work Plan. She said in January that leaving committee work plans out of the debate may have gone too far. When gov.gg was checked on 10 October it listed five of the eight committee plans, with Health & Social Care, Home Affairs and Policy & Resources missing.

Running through much of the correspondence is a profound lack of trust. I know Deputies have mentioned this before. A belief the States’ waste money, that it has to get its own house in order…

In July she told the States that islanders believed the States "has to get its own house in order". She reported it as what she was hearing and did not say it had been done.

Let me close by stressing once again this is a conditional decision. We are not asking for the final approval of any package today. That decision will need to come in the summer.

On 26 February St Pier, speaking for P&R, called the votes a conditional decision, with the real one to come in the summer.

We have a system that is clearly not yet complete, appears to have reduced functionality for Revenue Service staff compared to its predecessor, provides poor service levels for customers, and apparently is a system with a limited lifespan.

As P&R vice-president in November 2025 he described the Revenue Service system as incomplete, with poor service for customers. That is Step 4 of the Future Guernsey plan, unfinished in his own words. On 24 June 2026 P&R told the States that many customers were still waiting for assessments, repayments or responses.

…if we are to contemplate tax reform, we must first demonstrate openly and transparently that we are tackling our own costs.

Humphreys moved the 1% savings amendment on 29 January and set the test in her own words.

…we send a clear unambiguous signal to the public that fiscal discipline and targeted savings are a key consideration of this Assembly before another conversation about tax reform begins. That sequencing matters, in my opinion, enormously for public confidence.

She put savings before tax reform. The States agreed her amendment, and it is worth about £20m a year by 2029 against the plan's £25m.

I am extremely confident that we are going to put absolutely everything we can into achieving it, but I cannot guarantee that we will get there.

Asked on 24 June whether the £20m would be found, the P&R president would not guarantee it. Humphreys did not vote in the February GST divisions because she was off the island, and her first GST ballot was on 15 July.

In all that time, you will not see a fairer tax system, you will not see any fundamental change or reform.

Hansard holds almost nothing from Rylatt on corporate tax, Zero-10 or wealth taxes before 17 July 2026. This July line, against delay, is the nearest it comes. The case rests on the votes: for fair-share measures in the 2026 Budget (39 to 0), against investigating a high net worth scheme (Amendment 36) and for the package, while Zero-10 stayed.