Jersey States Member Scorecard

AN INDEPENDENT RECORD OF EVERY PROMISE MADE IN THE STATES OF JERSEY

Visit the Guernsey edition →
04 SeptStamp duty on buy-to-let and second homes regraded from Mixed to Kept after the vote that delivered it was found unlinked; Long-Term Care cap ruling stands, with the December 2025 vote added.— Stephen Ahier04 SeptSustainable finance promise regraded from No recorded vote to Kept after a reader challenge found the amendment that delivered it, which she lodged herself, unlinked.— Hilary Jeune04 SeptTwo further verdict-based promises revised after reader challenges: constituency surgeries regraded Partial to Delivered; Equalities Minister regraded Outstanding to In progress.— Hilary Jeune
← Leaderboard·Manifesto rating·June 2026 election manifesto
Rank 46 of 46

Dave Curtis

The manifesto sets out a parish-focused platform covering community safety, youth and mental health provision, cost-of-living support, local food resilience, and transport links. Each area is addressed through directional advocacy rather than named mechanisms, figures or timelines. The road-safety section identifies school routes and busy junctions as pressure points without naming specific locations or projects. The Parish Hall pledge commits to responsiveness and visibility. The candidate states independence from any political party and frames the election as a question of trust and presence in the community.

Read the manifesto
020406080100
0
Overall · out of 100
“Needs a second draft”

The five dimensions

Select one to jump to the reasoning behind its score.

Weighted into the overall score
35
/ 100

Ambition

Weight 15%
“The art of the possible”

The manifesto covers several areas, including community safety, youth provision, cost-of-living support, local food resilience, and transport links, but each is addressed at a high level of generality without a connecting reform programme or named investment. The furthest-reaching section is the call for a 'more self-sufficient Island', but this is framed as advocacy rather than a concrete policy objective. The scope is principally parish-level service and representation.

20
/ 100

Tangibility

Weight 25%
“Mostly directional”

Every commitment in the manifesto is directional: no figure, date, named mechanism or named line item appears in any section. The road-safety section identifies 'school routes and busy junctions' as pressure points but names no specific junction, project or timeline. The youth provision and cost-of-living sections describe concerns and desired outcomes without stating how they would be addressed. The Parish Hall pledge is a statement of intent rather than a programme.

55
/ 100

Realism

Weight 20%
“Needs a tailwind”

The manifesto's commitments are modest in scope and broadly consistent with what a parish-level elected official could plausibly advocate for. Several of the areas identified, including road safety near schools, youth services, and parish accessibility, are well-established concerns in Jersey and do not depend on untested assumptions. The absence of any stated funding approach or mechanism is a gap, but the manifesto does not claim new spending or tax changes that would require one, so the realism ceiling is not strained.

40
/ 100

Deliverability

Weight 30%
“Relies on other decision-makers”

The Scorecard records Curtis as a member of the Environment, Housing and Infrastructure Scrutiny Panel, the Children, Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel, and the Comité de Connétable. The youth provision and mental health pledges align in subject area with the Children, Education and Home Affairs Scrutiny Panel membership; the road-safety and transport pledges align in subject area with the Environment, Housing and Infrastructure Scrutiny Panel membership. The Scorecard records membership of the Comité de Connétable. The cost-of-living, farming, fishing, and ferry-link pledges are advocacy commitments that depend on other Ministers and, where legislation is required, an Assembly majority of 25 of 49 members.

82
/ 100

Low waffle

Weight 10%
“General in places”

A substantial proportion of the text consists of general statements of values and intent rather than specific commitments: phrases such as 'put St Saviour first', 'a more joined-up, reliable approach', 'focus, accountability, and a clear understanding of real-world impacts', and the closing passage about trust and approachability carry no concrete commitment. Several sentences restate the same directional point in slightly different terms. The specific content that does appear, identifying school routes and junctions as pressure points, is brief relative to the surrounding general language.

← Back to the leaderboardRank 46 of 46 · Scored by the Jersey States Member Scorecard team