AN INDEPENDENT RECORD OF EVERY PROMISE MADE IN THE STATES OF JERSEY
Visit the Guernsey edition →Senator · Independent
Assistant Minister for Treasury and Resources · Minister for External Relations · Member of Bailiff’s Consultative Panel
Ian Gorst was first elected to the States Assembly in 2005 as a Deputy for St Clement and has served continuously since then. He subsequently became a Senator in 2011 and served two terms in that role before standing as a Deputy for St Mary, St Ouen and St Peter in 2022, then returning as a Senator in 2026. His ministerial career has been extensive: he served as Assistant Chief Minister from 2005 to 2008, Minister for Social Security from 2008 to 2011, and as Chief Minister from 2011 to 2018. He has held various External Relations and Treasury portfolios across subsequent terms. He currently serves as Minister for External Relations and Assistant Minister for Treasury and Resources, both since 2026, and remains a member of the Bailiff's Consultative Panel.
For the 2026–2030 term, Gorst campaigned on economic stability, fiscal restraint and Jersey's international standing. His principal pledges included continuing to lead external relations and represent Jersey's interests internationally, driving a competitiveness programme to grow the economy and improve productivity, and exercising restraint in public spending while empowering the public sector to improve front-line services. He also pledged to work with private developers to deliver housing on brownfield sites, freeze fuel duty with temporary cuts should global conditions require it, and protect the Green Zone and Coastal National Park from large-scale solar development on green fields.
Sources
—
States participation
4
Votes expected
Have your say
Public commentary and ratings from readers on how Ian Joseph Gorst is doing. This is not Ian Joseph Gorst’s own response.
No comments yet. Be the first to rate this member’s term so far.
Comments open soon. Sign-in for this feature is still being configured.
Coverage
Every Jersey media article naming this member, month by month. Accented bars mark coverage spikes — hover or focus any month to see the stories behind it.
Attendance
The States Assembly records a reason against every non-vote, so being ill, off-island, on parental leave or barred by a declared interest can be told apart from simply not turning up. Absences with an accepted reason are removed from both sides of the rate rather than held against the member.
4 votes in 2026–2030 Assembly so far — fewer than the 10 needed before this scorecard will publish a participation rate. The record to date:
Manifesto
Grouped by policy area. Each promise carries the recorded States Assembly votes that test it, and whether this member voted to deliver — open any vote for the motion and the reasoning. A vote counts against a promise only where it plainly contradicts it; where a member voted against one particular measure but the breach is arguable, the vote is shown and set aside rather than counted. Promises no recorded vote has borne on yet are marked as untested rather than scored.
1 promise · 0 kept
No recorded States Assembly vote bears on this area yet.
Will work with private developers to enable new housing developments, particularly on brownfield sites.
“We must also work with private developers to enable new developments, especially on brownfield sites.”
No recorded vote bears on this promise yet, and no delivery verdict has been generated.
1 promise · 0 kept
No recorded States Assembly vote bears on this area yet.
Will support continued investment in health, education, children's services, and emergency services.
“I support continued investment in health, education, children's services, and the emergency services.”
No recorded vote bears on this promise yet, and no delivery verdict has been generated.
Related votes (shown for context; too partial or indirect to count towards the score)
The Social Security Fund supports health and welfare services, so reinstating the States Grant partially bears on the commitment to continued investment in health and children's services.
4 promises · 0 kept
1recorded vote
1 away
Will pursue restraint in public spending and drive public sector efficiencies to improve front-line services.
“We must also exercise restraint in public spending and the size of government. The public sector should be empowered to drive the efficiencies which are common in the private and voluntary sectors, and focus on delivering improved front-line services.”
1 recorded vote tests this promise
1 awayVoting Contre delivers this
Reinstating the States Grant to the Social Security Fund increases public expenditure, so voting Contre aligns with the commitment to restrain public spending and drive efficiencies.
Will support a freeze in fuel duty and temporary cuts if global events cause prolonged price increases.
“I favour a freeze in fuel duty, and temporary cuts if global events lead to longer-term price increases.”
No recorded vote bears on this promise yet, and no delivery verdict has been generated.
Will drive forward the competitiveness programme to grow the economy, embrace innovation, and improve productivity.
“Over the next four years, I want to drive forward our competitiveness programme – which I launched in March – to grow our economy, embrace innovation, and improve productivity.”
No recorded vote bears on this promise yet, and no delivery verdict has been generated.
Will oppose new regulatory burdens that raise business costs or increase pressures on family budgets.
“We must avoid new regulatory burdens which increase the cost of business, and ensure that government decisions do not place greater pressures on family budgets.”
No recorded vote bears on this promise yet, and no delivery verdict has been generated.
2 promises · 0 kept
No recorded States Assembly vote bears on this area yet.
Will support investment in St Helier neighbourhoods to improve town living conditions.
“Equally, we must invest in St Helier neighbourhoods to improve town living.”
No recorded vote bears on this promise yet, and no delivery verdict has been generated.
Will oppose large-scale solar panels on green fields and seek to enhance the Coastal National Park and protect the Green Zone.
“I oppose the large-scale use of green fields for solar panels. I want to enhance our Coastal National Park and protect the Green Zone.”
No recorded vote bears on this promise yet, and no delivery verdict has been generated.
1 promise · 0 kept
No recorded States Assembly vote bears on this area yet.
Will continue as Minister for External Relations, representing Jersey's interests internationally.
“if elected, wish to continue as Minister for External Relations with responsibility for Financial Services, standing up for Jersey's interests in the UK, Europe, and further afield, ensuring that our voice is heard on the international stage.”
No recorded vote bears on this promise yet, and no delivery verdict has been generated.
Manifesto · Closed term
Deputy for St Mary, St Ouen and St Peter · Independent. This term has closed — shown here as this member's earlier record, not the live one. A vote counts against a promise only where it plainly contradicts it; an arguable breach is shown and set aside rather than counted.
94%
Kept rate
86%
States participation
20
Promises tracked
86%
of the 851 votes they were expected to cast in 2022–2026 Assembly
Set aside from the rate · 41
These 41 ballots are removed from both sides of the rate, not counted as absences. Each is a vote the member either could not cast or was barred from casting. Reasons are the States Assembly’s own, as published in its voting record.
6 promises · 6 kept
25recorded votes
8 Pour · 14 Contre · 3 away
Will pursue building affordable homes on States-owned and other appropriate sites.
“To address the housing crisis, we must build affordable homes on States owned sites and enable developments on other appropriate sites.”
10 recorded votes test this promise
4 Pour · 5 Contre · 1 awayVoting Pour delivers this
This vote on cost-of-living measures affecting Andium Homes rent increases is directly connected to affordable housing on States-owned sites.
Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise concerns building affordable homes on States-owned sites, while the motion concerned Andium Homes rent increases — a related but distinct housing affordability matter — and voting against a rent-control measure is not the same as opposing construction of affordable homes.
Voting Pour delivers this
Investing stamp duty uplift into first-time buyer funds supports affordable housing financing mechanisms that align with pursuing affordable homes.
Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise concerns building affordable homes on States-owned and appropriate sites, while the motion addressed directing stamp duty revenue into first-time buyer funds — a different, specific financial mechanism that the member could reasonably oppose while still pursuing the stated commitment to build affordable homes.
Voting Pour delivers this
The Le Squez amendment to the Government Plan concerns investment in a States housing estate, bearing on affordable homes on States-owned sites.
Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise is a general commitment to build affordable homes on States-owned sites, while the motion is one specific budget amendment regarding Le Squez, and voting against it could reflect concerns about the particular mechanism, funding, or details of that amendment rather than rejection of the broader goal of building affordable homes.
Voting Pour delivers this
A Social Rents Plan to Reduce Rental Stress for Tenants directly advances affordable housing goals for vulnerable Islanders.
Voting Pour delivers this
The adopted Social Rental Plan to Reduce Rental Stress for Tenants as amended directly advances affordable housing.
Voting Contre delivers this
Increasing the assets and savings threshold for the Affordable Housing Gateway would make it harder for some to access affordable housing; voting Contre preserves access for those genuinely in need.
Voting Pour delivers this
The amendment on empty residential properties bears on increasing housing supply and availability, directly relevant to pursuing affordable homes.
Voting Pour delivers this
Development levies bear directly on the economics of building new homes, affecting the viability of affordable housing development.
Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise is a general commitment to build affordable homes, while this motion concerns a specific amendment about development levies in the budget—a funding/mechanism question where voting against does not straightforwardly contradict the broader housing commitment.
Voting Pour delivers this
This vote on Affordable Housing Provision at the Waterfront directly advances building affordable homes on appropriate sites.
Voting Contre delivers this
Deferring approval of an Andium Homes site sale at Kensington Place would slow development of affordable housing on States-owned sites, so voting Contre (against deferral) advances the promise.
Related votes (shown for context; too partial or indirect to count towards the score)
Reappointing a Non-Executive Director to the States of Jersey Development Company supports its governance and hence affordable housing development capacity.
Andium Homes Articles of Association update relates to governance of the main States-owned affordable housing provider.
Will support taller buildings in St Helier to protect green spaces and limit rural parish development.
“I support taller buildings in St Helier to help protect our green spaces and ensure minimal further development in St Mary, St Ouen and St Peter.”
1 recorded vote tests this promise
1 PourVoting Pour delivers this
Delivering £500,000 for neighbourhood regeneration in St. Helier supports urban investment and densification consistent with protecting green spaces by focusing development in town.
Related votes (shown for context; too partial or indirect to count towards the score)
The Common Strategic Policy second amendment may relate to housing and development policy that touches on where development should be directed, but the link to taller buildings in St Helier specifically is indirect.
Will push to reinstate shared equity and deposit support schemes for homebuyers.
“I have previously overseen successful shared equity and deposit support schemes, and these must be available again.”
5 recorded votes test this promise
5 ContreVoting Pour delivers this
This vote on mortgage repayment assistance directly relates to support schemes for homebuyers, including deposit and equity support.
Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise specifically concerns shared equity and deposit support schemes, whereas the motion concerned mortgage repayment assistance, which is a different housing support mechanism; voting against one scheme does not clearly contradict a promise to reinstate different schemes.
Voting Pour delivers this
The Affordable Home Purchase (AHP) scheme amendment to the Government Plan directly relates to reinstating shared equity and deposit support schemes for homebuyers.
Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. While the promise concerns shared equity and deposit support schemes, the motion is a specific amendment to the Affordable Housing Programme within a broader Government Plan, and voting against one particular AHP amendment does not straightforwardly contradict a general commitment to reinstate those schemes, as the member may have objected to this mechanism's design, funding, or context rather than the principle.
Voting Contre delivers this
This amendment to the fourteenth amendment would alter the reinstatement of mortgage interest tax relief; voting contre preserves the relief for first-time/homebuyers as per promise 4.
Voting Pour delivers this
Investing stamp duty uplift revenue into first-time buyer funds is directly a form of deposit/equity support scheme for homebuyers, aligning with reinstating shared equity and deposit support schemes.
Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise specifically names shared equity and deposit support schemes as the mechanisms to reinstate, while this amendment concerns redirecting stamp duty revenue into first-time buyer funds — a related but distinct mechanism — so voting against it does not plainly contradict the named promise.
Voting Pour delivers this
Reinstating mortgage interest tax relief would provide financial support to homebuyers, partially overlapping with the promise to support deposit and equity schemes.
Considered and set aside: this motion does not bear on the promise. The promise concerned shared equity and deposit support schemes, while the motion was about reinstating mortgage interest tax relief — a different mechanism in the same broad housing affordability area, so the vote does not bear on the specific promise made.
Will advocate using States investment funds to finance new housing developments and affordable purchases.
“We should use existing States investment funds to help pay for new housing developments and support affordable purchases.”
1 recorded vote tests this promise
1 PourVoting Pour delivers this
Affordable Housing Provision at the Waterfront involves States investment in housing development, touching on using States funds for affordable purchases.
Will support prioritising first-time buyers and those with parish connections for new housing.
“First time buyers, and Islanders with Parish connections, should be given priority for new housing.”
4 recorded votes test this promise
1 Pour · 2 Contre · 1 awayVoting Contre delivers this
Increasing the Affordable Housing Gateway assets/savings threshold could exclude first-time buyers; voting Contre preserves prioritisation of genuine first-time buyers.
Voting Pour delivers this
Investing stamp duty uplift into first-time buyer funds directly prioritises first-time buyers for new housing support, squarely matching this promise.
Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise supports prioritising first-time buyers in housing allocation, while the motion concerns a specific funding mechanism (directing stamp duty revenue into first-time buyer funds), and voting against one particular fiscal route to supporting first-time buyers does not plainly contradict the broader commitment to prioritising them.
Voting Contre delivers this
Removing the stamp duty surcharge on buy-to-let and second homes would advantage investors over first-time buyers, working against prioritising first-time buyers.
Voting Contre delivers this
The amendment to remove the stamp duty surcharge on second homes would benefit second-home buyers at the expense of first-time buyers, working against the promise.
Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise concerns prioritising first-time buyers for new housing, while the motion concerns removing a stamp duty surcharge on second homes — a related but distinct policy instrument, and opposing the surcharge removal is only one of many possible ways to honour a general priority-for-first-time-buyers commitment.
Will push for new developments to account for impacts on schools and traffic.
“New developments must consider the local impact on schools and traffic.”
4 recorded votes test this promise
1 Pour · 2 Contre · 1 awayVoting Pour delivers this
Development Levies (parts a and b) directly relate to requiring new developments to account for infrastructure impacts including schools and traffic.
Voting Contre delivers this
The Supplementary Planning Guidance on Parking Strategy bears on traffic impacts of new developments; voting Contre (against rejection) would support better parking/traffic planning requirements.
Voting Pour delivers this
Supplementary Planning guidance on parking directly relates to accounting for traffic impacts in new developments.
Voting Pour delivers this
Development Levies part (c) also directly relates to requiring new developments to fund infrastructure impacts.
Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise is a general directional commitment about development impacts on schools and traffic, and without knowing the specific content of the amended part (c) of the Development Levies motion, it cannot be determined that voting against it plainly contradicts the promise rather than reflecting a preference for a different mechanism to achieve the same goal.
2 promises · 2 kept
16recorded votes
8 Pour · 6 Contre · 2 away
Will support greater investment in health and care services to reduce delays and cancellations.
“Our everyday health and care services must improve, with greater investment where necessary to reduce delays and cancellations.”
11 recorded votes test this promise
7 Pour · 4 ContreVoting Pour delivers this
Health Insurance Fund Transfers amendment to the Government Plan relates to health service funding.
Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise supports greater investment in health and care services generally, but voting against one specific amendment concerning HIF (Health Insurance Fund) transfers in the Government Plan does not clearly contradict that goal, as the member may have opposed this particular funding mechanism while still supporting health investment through other means.
Voting Pour delivers this
Multi-morbidity GP consultations amendment directly relates to investment in health services to reduce delays.
Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise calls generally for greater investment to reduce delays and cancellations, while this motion concerns one specific funding mechanism (multi-morbidity GP consultations), and a member could vote against this particular amendment while still genuinely pursuing the broader commitment through other means.
Voting Pour delivers this
Free GP visits for children and young people amendment directly advances greater investment in health services.
Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise supports greater investment to reduce delays and cancellations generally, but voting against one specific amendment (free GP visits for children) does not plainly contradict that goal, as the member could reasonably oppose this particular funding mechanism while still supporting broader health investment through other means.
Voting Pour delivers this
Health and Community Services Interim Board amendment relates to governance/delivery of health services.
Voting Pour delivers this
Funding of Acute Cardiac Nursing (Government Plan amendment) directly advances greater investment in health services.
Voting Pour delivers this
Vaccination Service amendment to the Government Plan directly relates to investment in health and care services.
Voting Pour delivers this
Medical Hosiery and wound dressing funding amendment directly advances investment in health services.
Voting Pour delivers this
Funding of Acute Cardiac Nursing (Government Plan amendment) directly advances greater investment in health and care services.
Voting Pour delivers this
Redirecting funds into palliative and respite care directly supports greater investment in health and care services to reduce delays and cancellations.
Voting Pour delivers this
Raising the share of Social Security contributions allocated to the Health Insurance Fund would increase investment in health services.
Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise supports greater investment in health and care generally, but voting against this specific mechanism—adjusting the Social Security contribution rate to the Health Insurance Fund—does not straightforwardly contradict that goal, as a member could oppose this particular funding route while still pursuing health investment through other means.
Voting Pour delivers this
Part 1 of the amendment to redirect funds into palliative and respite care directly supports greater investment in health and care services.
Related votes (shown for context; too partial or indirect to count towards the score)
Moving £240,000 to the States of Jersey Police is a reallocation from the Health budget, which works against greater investment in health and care services.
Will push for consideration of alternative, more cost-efficient hospital sites instead of Overdale.
“Overdale is not my preferred site for the new hospital. Any alternative, more cost-efficient options should be considered quickly after the election.”
5 recorded votes test this promise
1 Pour · 2 Contre · 2 awayVoting Pour delivers this
New Healthcare Facilities Programme paragraph (b) directly relates to the hospital project decisions, bearing on the promise to push for alternative, more cost-efficient sites.
Voting Pour delivers this
New Healthcare Facilities Programme paragraph (a) also directly relates to hospital siting decisions.
Voting Pour delivers this
Government Plan amendment on Hospital funding relates to financing the hospital project, bearing on cost-efficiency considerations.
Voting Pour delivers this
Government Plan amendment on New Healthcare Facilities Programme expenditure bears on the hospital project and cost management.
Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise concerns pushing for consideration of alternative hospital sites rather than Overdale, but the motion is a specific budget amendment about healthcare facilities programme expenditure, and voting against it could reflect concerns about funding levels, mechanisms, or other bundled matters rather than a rejection of alternative site consideration.
Voting Pour delivers this
Our Hospital Project Reporting vote directly relates to scrutinising the hospital project, consistent with pushing for consideration of alternative sites.
Considered and set aside: this motion does not bear on the promise. The motion concerned reporting arrangements for the hospital project, not the choice of site, so voting against it does not contradict a promise about considering alternative, more cost-efficient hospital sites instead of Overdale.
1 promise · 1 kept
5recorded votes
3 Pour · 2 Contre
Will push to extend skills training and provide fair support for university living costs.
“We need to extend skills training and give fair support with university living costs.”
5 recorded votes test this promise
3 Pour · 2 ContreVoting Pour delivers this
Skills Development Fund vote directly advances extending skills training support.
Voting Pour delivers this
Update of Higher Education Student Funding as amended directly addresses fair support for university living costs.
Voting Pour delivers this
The amendment to Higher Education Student Funding (Parts 1-6) directly advances fair support for university living costs.
Voting Pour delivers this
Funding free GP visits for all full-time students provides support for university living costs, directly relevant to the promise on fair support for university living costs.
Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise concerns skills training and university living costs support, whereas the motion addressed free GP visits for students — a related welfare measure but a distinct policy mechanism not mentioned in or clearly implied by the manifesto commitment.
Voting Pour delivers this
Adjusting apprenticeship grants for inflation supports skills training, directly relevant to the promise to extend skills training.
Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise to "extend skills training" is a general directional commitment, and voting against one specific inflation-adjustment mechanism for apprenticeship grants is not the same as opposing skills training itself, as the member could support the goal while objecting to this particular funding measure.
4 promises · 4 kept
37recorded votes
25 Pour · 10 Contre · 2 away
Will continue developing Jersey's economic, political, and cultural international links.
“If elected, I hope to continue building Jersey's economic, political, and cultural links for the benefit of Islanders.”
5 recorded votes test this promise
5 PourVoting Pour delivers this
This vote directly concerns the Assembly's consideration of a bilateral treaty with the UAE, bearing directly on developing Jersey's international political and economic links.
Voting Pour delivers this
This is the second paragraph of the UAE bilateral treaty vote, likewise directly advancing Jersey's international political and economic relationships.
Voting Pour delivers this
This vote approves a double taxation agreement with Bahrain, directly advancing Jersey's international economic and political links.
Voting Pour delivers this
Extending UK Nationality Acts to Jersey advances Jersey's formal international legal framework and links to the Crown.
Voting Pour delivers this
Extending international intellectual property treaties (PCT, Hague, Madrid, Nice) to Jersey directly develops Jersey's international legal and economic links.
Related votes (shown for context; too partial or indirect to count towards the score)
Supporting Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Election Observers touches on Jersey's international parliamentary links.
Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise is a general directional commitment to building international links, while the motion concerns a specific mechanism (CPA election observers), and voting against one particular international engagement measure does not plainly contradict a broad aspiration to develop international relationships.
Will pursue prudent public finance management by reducing debt, controlling spending, and keeping taxes low.
“We must return to a prudent management of our public finances, reducing debt, controlling public spending, and keeping taxes low.”
12 recorded votes test this promise
5 Pour · 7 ContreVoting Pour delivers this
Supporting the Government Plan 2023-2026 (as amended) reflects endorsing public finance management plans, bearing on prudent finance management.
Voting Pour delivers this
Supporting the Government Plan 2024-2027 as amended relates to endorsing a framework for controlled public spending.
Voting Pour delivers this
Transfer of 2024 Departmental Underspend into the Stabilisation Fund directly relates to prudent public finance management and reducing debt.
Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. Transferring a departmental underspend into the Stabilisation Fund is one specific fiscal mechanism that could relate to prudent financial management, but a member could vote against this particular transfer for many reasons (e.g., preferring to use the underspend for debt reduction, different spending priorities, or disagreement with the fund's purpose) while still genuinely pursuing the general goals of reducing debt and controlling spending.
Voting Pour delivers this
Supporting the 2025-2028 Government Plan as amended relates to overall prudent public finance management.
Voting Contre delivers this
Removing the upper earnings limit on Social Security contributions would raise employer costs, working against the promise to keep taxes/contributions low.
Voting Pour delivers this
Adopting the 2026-2029 Budget as amended reflects endorsement of the Government's overall public finance management framework.
Voting Contre delivers this
Removing the upper earnings limit on Long-Term Care contributions would raise costs on individuals, working against keeping taxes low.
Voting Pour delivers this
The Council of Ministers' amendment to reduce net revenue expenditure to balance the Budget directly advances prudent public finance management and spending control.
Voting Contre delivers this
Halving the proposed reduction in the States grant to the Social Security Fund and drawing from the Strategic Reserve works against reducing debt and prudent finance management.
Voting Pour delivers this
Freezing government spending at 2025 levels aligns with the promise to control spending and pursue prudent public finance management.
Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. Although the promise includes controlling public spending, voting against one specific freeze amendment does not clearly contradict it, since a member could genuinely support spending control while judging this particular freeze mechanism to be the wrong instrument, too blunt, or incompatible with other priorities in the broader Budget.
Voting Contre delivers this
Raising the standard income tax rate from 20% to 25% directly contradicts the promise to keep taxes low.
Voting Pour delivers this
A new personal tax allowance could be seen as keeping taxes low for lower earners, consistent with the promise, though it could also increase public expenditure.
Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. Although the promise includes "keeping taxes low," voting against one specific new personal tax allowance mechanism could be consistent with the broader promise if the member judged it unaffordable, fiscally imprudent, or preferred a different route to low taxation—the promise does not commit to supporting every individual tax-relief measure proposed.
Will pursue targeted cost-of-living support for vulnerable Islanders, especially for winter fuel bills.
“To tackle cost of living increases, we need targeted support to help the most vulnerable, especially with winter fuel bills.”
11 recorded votes test this promise
8 Pour · 1 Contre · 2 awayVoting Pour delivers this
Extending the temporary Social Security contribution reduction provides further cost-of-living relief to vulnerable Islanders.
Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise concerned targeted support for vulnerable Islanders on winter fuel bills, whereas this motion addressed extending a broad Social Security contribution reduction for all contributors — a different and non-targeted mechanism that the member could reasonably reject while still pursuing the specific targeted approach promised.
Voting Pour delivers this
The Mini-Budget 2022 included cost-of-living support measures for vulnerable Islanders.
Voting Pour delivers this
Widening the income threshold for the Community Costs Bonus targets cost-of-living support at vulnerable Islanders, consistent with the promise.
Voting Pour delivers this
Draft Finance (Budget – Cost of living) Law directly provides cost-of-living support for vulnerable Islanders.
Voting Pour delivers this
The second amendment to the Income Support Regulations relates to targeted support for vulnerable Islanders.
Voting Pour delivers this
Increasing the Christmas Bonus (Part A) provides targeted cost-of-living financial support for vulnerable Islanders.
Voting Pour delivers this
The Extension of Cold Weather Bonus directly provides targeted cost-of-living support for vulnerable Islanders, especially for winter fuel bills.
Voting Pour delivers this
This amendment to the Cold Weather Bonus extension also directly relates to targeted support for vulnerable Islanders for winter fuel costs.
Voting Pour delivers this
Draft Christmas Bonus Miscellaneous Amendments relates to targeted cost-of-living support for vulnerable Islanders.
Voting Pour delivers this
Draft Cold Weather Bonus and Payments (Amendment – Extension of Eligibility) directly extends support for vulnerable Islanders' winter fuel bills.
Voting Pour delivers this
Draft Cold Weather Bonus Miscellaneous Amendments Regulations directly support the cold weather/winter fuel support scheme for vulnerable Islanders.
Will cut fuel duty by 10p per litre, freeze alcohol duty, and support businesses towards a living wage.
“I would cut fuel duty by 10p a litre, freeze alcohol duty and support businesses to ensure we become a living wage Island.”
9 recorded votes test this promise
7 Pour · 2 ContreVoting Pour delivers this
The fourth amendment to the Mini-Budget may relate to fuel duty measures bearing on the specific promise to cut fuel duty by 10p.
Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. Without knowing the specific content of the fourth amendment to the Mini-Budget, it cannot be determined whether voting against it contradicts the promise about fuel duty, alcohol duty, or living wage support, as procedural and budgetary amendments frequently concern mechanisms, funding levels, or bundled measures rather than the core principle promised.
Voting Pour delivers this
Government Plan Amendment 25 (paragraphs 1 & 2) concerns alcohol duty, directly relating to the promise to freeze alcohol duty.
Voting Pour delivers this
Government Plan Amendment 25 (paragraph 3) also concerns alcohol duty, relating to the promise to freeze alcohol duty.
Voting Pour delivers this
The adopted Alcohol Duty amendment (as amended) directly bears on the promise to freeze alcohol duty.
Voting Contre delivers this
The eighth amendment to the 2025 Government Plan concerns indexation of alcohol duty; voting Contre (against indexation/increase) advances the promise to freeze alcohol duty.
Voting Pour delivers this
Draft Employment (Minimum Wage) Amendment Regulations relates to the promise to support businesses towards a living wage.
Voting Pour delivers this
Minimum Wage alignment with the Living Wage directly relates to the promise to support businesses towards a living wage.
Voting Pour delivers this
Draft Employment (Minimum Wage and Benefits in Kind) Amendment Law principles relate to the promise to support businesses towards a living wage.
Voting Pour delivers this
Draft Employment (Minimum Wage and Benefits in Kind) Amendment Law third reading directly relates to the living wage promise.
Related votes (shown for context; too partial or indirect to count towards the score)
Extending Social Security contribution reductions has some bearing on keeping employment costs manageable for businesses, tangentially related to the promise on business support.
1 promise · 1 kept
7recorded votes
3 Pour · 1 Contre · 3 away
Will support proportionate, publicly-backed moves towards carbon neutrality and sustainability.
“I support sensible moves towards carbon neutrality and greater sustainability. Changes must be supported by the public and proportionate for Jersey.”
7 recorded votes test this promise
3 Pour · 1 Contre · 3 awayVoting Pour delivers this
Establishing a Climate Council as amended directly advances publicly-backed moves towards carbon neutrality and sustainability.
Voting Contre delivers this
The amendment to the Climate Council proposition (Part a) that was rejected – voting Contre preserves the broader Climate Council establishment aligned with the promise.
Voting Pour delivers this
An Evidence-based Energy Strategy directly advances proportionate, publicly-backed moves towards carbon neutrality and sustainability.
Voting Pour delivers this
Walking and Cycling routes amendment to the Government Plan supports sustainable transport and carbon neutrality goals.
Voting Pour delivers this
Supporting offshore wind development advances publicly-backed moves towards carbon neutrality and sustainability.
Voting Contre delivers this
Voting Contre the amendment to offshore wind (which may have restricted it) advances the promise to support sustainability moves.
Voting Pour delivers this
Restoring £656,000 to the Environment department's budget supports proportionate, publicly-backed moves towards sustainability.
6 promises · 3 kept
29recorded votes
15 Pour · 10 Contre · 4 away
Will support a balanced population policy and greater use of time-specific work permits post-Brexit.
“We require a balanced population policy and, post-Brexit, should make greater use of time specific work permits.”
2 recorded votes test this promise
1 Pour · 1 ContreVoting Pour delivers this
Draft Control of Housing and Work (Residential and Employment Status) Amendment Regulations directly relates to population policy and work permit arrangements.
Voting Pour delivers this
The vote on reducing the residency requirement for entitlement to work directly relates to population policy and work permit arrangements.
Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise calls for greater use of time-specific work permits as part of a balanced population policy, but the motion concerns reducing residency requirements for work entitlement, which is a related but distinct mechanism — a member could reasonably oppose this specific measure while still pursuing time-specific permits and a balanced population policy by other means.
Will support strengthening police powers to address anti-social and criminal behaviour.
“I support strengthened provisions to allow the police to act against anti-social and criminal behaviour.”
4 recorded votes test this promise
4 PourVoting Pour delivers this
Draft Crime (Public Order) Law Principles directly relates to strengthening police powers to address anti-social and criminal behaviour.
Voting Pour delivers this
Draft Crime (Public Order) Law Articles directly delivers new police powers for public order/anti-social behaviour.
Voting Pour delivers this
Draft Crime (Public Order) Law Third Reading completing the enactment of new police powers for anti-social behaviour.
Voting Pour delivers this
Moving £240,000 to the States of Jersey Police directly increases police funding, supporting the promise to strengthen police powers to address anti-social and criminal behaviour.
Will push for further targeted measures to reduce speeding.
“Further targeted action should be taken to reduce speeding.”
2 recorded votes test this promise
2 PourVoting Pour delivers this
Road Traffic – Offences and Penalties as amended directly advances targeted measures to reduce speeding.
Voting Pour delivers this
The amendment to Road Traffic Offences and Penalties also directly relates to speeding reduction measures.
Will hold regular surgeries and actively represent parishioners as Deputy.
“I commit to being an active and accessible parish Deputy, holding regular surgeries and standing up for parishioners.”
No independent reporting from the Jersey Evening Post, Bailiwick Express, BBC Jersey or any other authoritative outlet was found confirming that Deputy Gorst held regular constituency surgeries in St Mary, St Ouen and St Peter during the 2022–2026 term. His personal campaign website (gorst.je) and vote.je profile carried the commitment as pre-election material rather than as a record of delivery. Throughout the term he held senior ministerial portfolios — Treasury Minister to January 2024, then External Relations Minister — which would have placed significant demands on his availability for parish-level casework, but no evidence either confirms or definitively refutes that scheduled surgeries took place. The 2022–2026 Assembly term has concluded; Gorst successfully stood for Senator in the June 2026 election rather than seeking re-election as Deputy.
Will bring a proposition to restore the Senatorial role for the next election.
“If re-elected, I will again make efforts to bring Senators back for the next election.”
20 recorded votes test this promise
7 Pour · 9 Contre · 4 awayVoting Pour delivers this
This amendment to the Re-instatement of Senators proposition relates directly to the process of restoring the Senatorial role.
Voting Pour delivers this
Second amendment paragraph (a) to the Re-instatement of Senators proposition relates to the process of restoring Senators.
Voting Pour delivers this
Second amendment paragraph (b) to the Re-instatement of Senators proposition relates to restoring the Senatorial role.
Voting Pour delivers this
Second amendment paragraph (c) to the Re-instatement of Senators proposition relates to restoring the Senatorial role.
Voting Pour delivers this
The main Re-instatement of Senators vote is a direct test of the specific promise to bring a proposition to restore the Senatorial role.
Voting Pour delivers this
Second Amendment to Re-instatement of Senators relates to details of restoring the Senatorial role.
Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise was to bring a proposition to restore Senators, not to support every amendment related to reinstatement; voting against a specific second amendment to P.2-2025 could reflect disagreement with the particular mechanism or drafting of that amendment rather than opposition to reinstating Senators in principle, especially if the member supported other parts of the proposition or had already fulfilled the promise by bringing their own proposition.
Voting Pour delivers this
Paragraph (a) of Senators reinstatement vote relates to key aspects of restoring the role.
Voting Pour delivers this
Paragraph (c) of Senators reinstatement vote relates to key aspects of restoring the role.
Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise was to bring a proposition to restore Senators, not to support every amendment to any such proposition; voting against one specific amendment (paragraph (c) of a fourth amendment) to a reinstatement proposition could reflect disagreement with the particular drafting or mechanism rather than opposition to restoring the Senatorial role itself.
Voting Pour delivers this
Fifth amendment to Re-instatement of Senators relates to the process of restoring the Senatorial role.
Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise was to bring a proposition to restore Senators, not necessarily to support every amendment to any such proposition; voting against a specific amendment (the fifth amendment to P.2-2025) could reflect disagreement with that particular amendment's terms rather than opposition to reinstating Senators, so a breach cannot be established without inference about his reasons.
Voting Pour delivers this
Third amendment to Re-instatement of Senators relates to the process of restoring the Senatorial role.
Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise was to bring a proposition to restore the Senatorial role, not to support every specific amendment to any such proposition; voting against this particular third amendment to P.2-2025 could reflect disagreement with the specific mechanism or details of that amendment rather than opposition to reinstating Senators as a principle.
Voting Pour delivers this
Amendment to Re-instatement of Senators proposition relates to the process of restoring the Senatorial role.
Voting Pour delivers this
Amendment to Re-instatement of Senators proposition relates to the process of restoring the Senatorial role.
Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise was to bring a proposition to restore Senators, not necessarily to support every amendment to any such proposition, so voting against a specific amendment to P.2-2025 does not clearly contradict the commitment to make efforts to bring Senators back.
Voting Pour delivers this
Re-instatement of Senators (P.2-2025) is a direct vote on restoring the Senatorial role, directly testing this specific promise.
Voting Pour delivers this
Draft Elections (Senators) Jersey Amendment Law 202- Fourth Amendment relates to restoring the Senatorial role for the next election.
Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise was to bring a proposition to restore Senators, not necessarily to support every amendment to such a proposition, and voting against a specific fourth amendment to the draft law could reflect disagreement with that particular amendment's wording or approach rather than opposition to restoring the Senatorial role itself.
Voting Pour delivers this
Amendment to Draft Elections (Senators) Law relates to restoring the Senatorial role.
Voting Pour delivers this
Second Amendment to Draft Elections (Senators) Law relates to restoring the Senatorial role.
Voting Pour delivers this
Third Amendment (as amended) to Draft Elections (Senators) Law relates to restoring the Senatorial role.
Voting Pour delivers this
Articles of Draft Elections (Senators) Amendment Law directly advance restoration of the Senatorial role.
Voting Pour delivers this
Third Reading of Draft Elections (Senators) Amendment Law directly completes restoration of the Senatorial role.
Voting Pour delivers this
Third amendment to Draft Elections (Senators) Law (amendment) relates to restoring the Senatorial role.
Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The member promised to bring a proposition to restore Senators, which he may have done, but this vote concerns a specific amendment to a draft elections law rather than the core proposition itself, so voting against one particular amendment does not straightforwardly contradict the promise to restore the Senatorial role.
Related votes (shown for context; too partial or indirect to count towards the score)
No recorded vote directly bears on restoring the Senatorial role; this note is excluded per instructions.
Considered and set aside: this motion does not bear on the promise. The promise concerns restoring the Senatorial role, while the motion decided an extension of a temporary reduction in Social Security contributions — entirely different subjects with no meaningful connection.
Will support retaining the Constables as States Members.
“I support the Constables remaining as States Members.”
1 recorded vote tests this promise
1 PourVoting Contre delivers this
Reform of the composition of the States Assembly proposition may propose removing Constables as States Members; voting Contre advances the promise to retain them.
Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. Without knowing the specific content of the "Reform of the composition of the States Assembly" motion, it cannot be determined with certainty that voting in favour necessarily removed or threatened the Constables' role as States Members, as reform could encompass many changes that leave the Constables' position intact.
Ian Joseph Gorst’s record changes with every States Assembly sitting. Follow us on LinkedIn and we will tell you when it does.
Follow on LinkedIn