Inna Gardiner

Voting Pour delivers this

This motion directly delivers the £500,000 commitment for neighbourhood regeneration in St. Helier, which is precisely the neighbourhood enhancement scheme the candidate promised to introduce.

Voting Pour delivers this

Reinstating mortgage interest tax relief directly reduces the cost of home ownership, materially advancing affordability for buyers including younger Islanders.

Voting Contre delivers this

This amendment modifies the mortgage interest tax relief proposal; voting against it preserves the underlying relief that advances home ownership affordability.

Voting Contre delivers this

Removing the stamp duty surcharge on buy-to-let and second homes could reduce a disincentive on those properties competing with first-time buyers, making home ownership harder for younger Islanders; voting against preserves a measure that discourages investor competition.

Voting Contre delivers this

The amendment to remove the stamp duty surcharge on second homes would reverse a measure intended to favour first-time buyers; voting against supports affordability for younger Islanders.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise to make home ownership more affordable is a general directional commitment, and whether removing a stamp duty surcharge on second homes advances or hinders that goal for younger first-time buyers is a matter of policy judgement rather than a plain contradiction of the promise.

Voting Pour delivers this

Measures on empty residential properties can bring more homes to market, which bears on housing affordability for younger Islanders.

Voting Pour delivers this

Development levies can fund affordable housing or infrastructure, directly bearing on making home ownership more affordable.

Voting Pour delivers this

Investing stamp duty uplift from second homes into first-time buyer funds directly advances making home ownership more affordable for younger Islanders.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise is a general directional commitment to make home ownership more affordable for younger Islanders, and voting against this one specific funding mechanism (directing second-home stamp duty revenue into first-time buyer funds) does not plainly contradict that commitment, as the member could have opposed this particular measure while supporting alternative routes to the same goal.

Voting Pour delivers this

Free GP visits for all full-time students directly provides an educational welfare benefit and supports Islanders in education, bearing on educational opportunities.

Voting Pour delivers this

Increasing funding for free childcare for 2-3 year olds supports early educational opportunities for the youngest Islanders.

Voting Pour delivers this

Adding sport and physical activity funding to the Jersey Premium scheme for primary schools directly expands educational opportunities for younger Islanders.

Voting Pour delivers this

Inflation-adjusting apprenticeship grants supports vocational educational opportunities for Islanders, bearing on the promise to provide educational opportunities for all ages.

Voting Pour delivers this

Additional funding for education directly advances providing educational opportunities for Islanders of all ages.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise is a broad directional commitment to educational opportunity, and voting against one specific funding amendment in a Government Plan does not straightforwardly contradict it, as the member could have had reasons related to the amendment's mechanism, scope, or fiscal implications while still pursuing the general goal by other means.

Voting Pour delivers this

The Council of Ministers' amendment reducing net revenue expenditure to balance the Budget directly relates to controlling and reducing public spending.

Voting Pour delivers this

Freezing government spending at 2025 levels is a direct mechanism to reduce public expenditure, squarely bearing on reducing wasteful public spending.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise to "spend public money wisely" is a general directional commitment, and voting against one specific mechanism (a blanket freeze at 2025 levels) does not clearly contradict it, since a member could reasonably oppose a blunt spending freeze while still genuinely pursuing the goal of reducing waste through other means.

Voting Pour delivers this

Widening the Community Costs Bonus income threshold directly helps more lower-income Islanders with the high cost of living.

Voting Pour delivers this

Free GP visits for full-time students reduces a specific essential living cost for a defined group of Islanders.

Voting Pour delivers this

Increasing childcare funding rates supports affordability of childcare, a significant essential living cost for families.

Voting Pour delivers this

The amendment on overpayments of Social Security contributions directly affects the financial burden on contributors, bearing on living costs protection.

Voting Pour delivers this

Halving the reduction in the States grant to the Social Security Fund helps protect the fund that underpins essential social security benefits relied on by many Islanders.

Voting Pour delivers this

Introducing a new personal tax allowance would reduce the tax burden on lower earners, directly bearing on protecting essential living costs.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. While a new personal tax allowance could relate to tackling the cost of living, the promise is a general directional commitment and voting against one specific tax mechanism does not plainly contradict it, as the member may have preferred alternative measures to protect essential living costs.

Voting Pour delivers this

A subsidised annual bus pass directly reduces transport costs, a key essential living cost for Islanders.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. A subsidised bus pass is one specific optional measure to reduce living costs, and voting against it does not clearly contradict a general manifesto commitment to "protect essential living costs," as the member could reasonably favour alternative mechanisms to achieve the same goal.

Voting Pour delivers this

Extending the temporary Social Security contribution reduction would lower costs for workers and employers, directly bearing on protecting essential living costs.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. While reducing Social Security contributions relates broadly to cost-of-living relief, voting against a three-month extension of a temporary measure is not plainly the same as opposing the protection of essential living costs, as the member could reasonably have preferred a different mechanism, timing, or fiscal approach to deliver that goal.

Voting Pour delivers this

Increasing revenue expenditure on agriculture and fisheries directly supports the agricultural community and food security, squarely matching the promise.

Voting Pour delivers this

Barring agricultural loans for cannabis-based products shapes which agricultural activities are supported, bearing on how the agricultural community is supported.

Voting Contre delivers this

This amendment modifies the bar on cannabis-based agricultural loans; its relation to supporting the agricultural community means voting on it is relevant to the promise.

Voting Pour delivers this

Inflation-adjusting apprenticeship grants supports workforce development and new skills, which bears on economic diversification by developing talent for new industries.

Voting Pour delivers this

Restoring funding to the Environment department directly supports environmental sustainability, one pillar of the candidate's sustainability commitment.

Voting Pour delivers this

A subsidised bus pass encourages use of public transport, supporting environmental and community sustainability goals.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise to "pursue sustainability" across community, economy, and environment is a broad directional commitment, and voting against one specific funding mechanism (a subsidised annual bus pass) does not plainly contradict it, as a member could oppose this particular measure while still genuinely pursuing sustainability goals through other means or on affordability grounds.

Voting Pour delivers this

Reducing net revenue expenditure across departmental heads directly relates to reducing public sector waste while managing the overall budget.

Voting Pour delivers this

Halving the reduction in the States grant to the Social Security Fund directly bears on ensuring pensions and social security are properly funded, part of the candidate's promise.

Voting Pour delivers this

The States grant to the Social Security Fund amendment directly bears on ensuring social security and pensions are properly funded.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise supports proper funding of pensions, and this amendment concerned the States grant to the Social Security Fund, but whether this specific amendment was the correct or necessary mechanism to honour that general commitment requires inference about funding levels, affordability, and alternative routes—none of which are provided.

Voting Pour delivers this

Freezing government spending at 2025 levels is a direct mechanism to reduce public sector waste and control expenditure.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise is a general directional commitment to reduce waste while protecting health, education, and pensions; voting against a blanket freeze on all government spending is not a clear breach, because a member could reasonably judge that an across-the-board real-terms cut was too blunt an instrument that risked underfunding the very priorities (health, education, pensions) the promise also required protecting.

Voting Pour delivers this

Additional funding for education directly bears on the promise to ensure education is properly funded.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise supports ensuring education is "properly funded," but voting against one specific funding amendment does not plainly contradict that goal, as the member could reasonably judge the existing provision adequate or prefer a different funding mechanism.