Jonathan Renouf

Voting Contre delivers this

Removing the stamp duty surcharge on buy-to-let and second homes would increase demand and reduce affordability for first-time buyers, working against the promise to reduce demand and improve affordability.

Voting Contre delivers this

This amendment sought to remove the stamp duty surcharge on second homes; defeating it preserves a demand-reduction measure that improves housing affordability.

Voting Pour delivers this

An amendment on empty residential properties bears directly on increasing housing supply by bringing empty homes back into use.

Voting Contre delivers this

This amendment to the empty residential properties amendment potentially weakened it; voting against preserves measures to increase housing supply.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise supports a broad package of housing measures, but whether voting against a specific amendment concerning empty residential properties is the correct way to honour that commitment cannot be determined without knowing whether the amendment would have helped or hindered supply, demand, or affordability — and voting for rather than against an amendment on empty properties could itself be consistent with the general goal.

Voting Pour delivers this

Development levies can be used to fund affordable housing, directly bearing on increasing housing supply and affordability.

Voting Pour delivers this

Introducing residential rent controls for two years would directly improve housing affordability for renters.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise commits to supporting measures to "reduce demand and improve affordability" but does not specify rent controls as a required mechanism, and a member could reasonably vote against this particular two-year rent control amendment while still pursuing affordability through other preferred means.

Voting Pour delivers this

Investing stamp duty uplift revenue from second homes into first-time buyer funds directly increases housing affordability and expands supply access.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise supports a broad package of housing affordability measures, but voting against this specific amendment to redirect stamp duty revenue into first-time buyer funds could reflect disagreement with the particular mechanism or fiscal allocation rather than opposition to the general goal of improving affordability.

Voting Pour delivers this

Reinstating mortgage interest tax relief could improve affordability for homeowners, though it could also stimulate demand broadly.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise supports measures to improve housing affordability generally, but reinstating mortgage interest tax relief is one specific, contested mechanism that a member could reasonably oppose while still pursuing affordability through other means, so voting against it does not plainly contradict the promise.

Voting Pour delivers this

Extending the temporary Social Security contribution reduction would maintain financial relief for lower-income workers, bearing on reducing poverty and inequality.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise to reduce poverty and inequality is a broad directional commitment, and voting against one specific three-month extension of a Social Security contribution reduction does not plainly contradict it, since the member could reasonably have judged this particular measure poorly targeted, unaffordable, or inferior to other means of pursuing the same goal.

Voting Pour delivers this

Widening the income threshold for the Community Costs Bonus directly reduces poverty and expands opportunity for lower-income islanders.

Voting Pour delivers this

Maintaining the States grant to the Social Security Fund supports the social safety net that underpins the fight against poverty and inequality.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise to "fight to reduce poverty and inequality" is a broad directional commitment, and voting against one specific amendment on the States grant to the Social Security Fund does not plainly contradict it, as the member could oppose this particular mechanism while pursuing the general aim through other means.

Voting Pour delivers this

Increasing funding for the free childcare scheme for 2-3 year olds reduces financial barriers for lower-income families and expands opportunity.

Voting Pour delivers this

Removing the upper earnings limit on Social Security contributions would increase revenue to fund social benefits, reducing inequality by making higher earners contribute more.

Voting Pour delivers this

Removing the upper earnings limit on Long-Term Care contributions similarly redistributes the burden and supports social care funding, reducing inequality.

Voting Pour delivers this

Halving the reduction in the States grant to the Social Security Fund protects the fund that underpins social security payments reducing poverty.

Voting Pour delivers this

Adjusting apprenticeship grants for inflation expands opportunity and supports lower-income individuals gaining skills and employment.

Voting Pour delivers this

Funding free GP visits for all full-time students expands opportunity and reduces health inequality for a vulnerable group.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise to "fight to reduce poverty and inequality" is a broad directional commitment, and voting against one specific proposed mechanism (free GP visits for full-time students) does not plainly contradict it, as the member could oppose this particular measure on grounds of funding, targeting, or preferred alternative approaches while still pursuing the general goal.

Voting Pour delivers this

Moving to a 25% rate with marginal-rate reliefs instead of the flat 20% standard rate would shift tax burden toward higher earners, reducing inequality.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. While the promise commits to reducing poverty and inequality, voting against this specific tax-rate mechanism does not plainly contradict it, since a member could reasonably oppose this particular structural change to personal income tax while still pursuing the general goal of reducing inequality through other means.

Voting Pour delivers this

Introducing a new personal tax allowance would reduce the tax burden on lower-income individuals, directly reducing poverty and inequality.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise to "fight to reduce poverty and inequality" is a broad directional commitment, and voting against one specific tax allowance mechanism does not straightforwardly contradict it, as the member could reasonably prefer alternative approaches to addressing poverty and inequality.

Voting Pour delivers this

This amendment directly sought additional funding for education, which is a direct test of the promise to push for increased investment in education.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. While the promise calls for more investment in education, voting against one specific funding amendment does not plainly contradict that general commitment, as the member may have opposed this particular mechanism, amount, or funding source while still pursuing increased education investment by other means.

Voting Pour delivers this

Adjusting apprenticeship grants for inflation is a direct investment in training, squarely bearing on the promise to increase investment in education and training.

Voting Pour delivers this

Adding funding to the Jersey Premium scheme for sport in primary schools is an investment in education provision for young islanders.

Voting Pour delivers this

Funding free GP visits for full-time students supports students' wellbeing and thereby their capacity to benefit from education.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise concerns education and training investment broadly, while this specific motion addressed free GP visits for students—a healthcare funding measure—meaning voting against it does not straightforwardly contradict a commitment to spend more on education and training.

Voting Pour delivers this

Restoring Environment department funding supports decarbonisation and sustainability work that underpins the promise to pursue these goals.

Voting Pour delivers this

A subsidised bus pass promotes sustainable transport, supporting decarbonisation as part of reinvigorating the economy sustainably.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise is a broad directional commitment to digital innovation, decarbonisation and sustainability, and while subsidised bus passes could be linked to sustainability and decarbonisation, voting against one specific funding mechanism for a bus pass does not straightforwardly contradict that general aspiration, as the member could reasonably oppose this particular measure on grounds of cost or design while still pursuing the broader goal.

Voting Contre delivers this

Moving the personal tax rate from 20% to 25% for most taxpayers would increase rather than reduce the burden on individual taxpayers, working against the promise to reduce it.

Voting Pour delivers this

Introducing a new personal tax allowance directly reduces the tax burden on individual taxpayers, partially bearing on the promise for tax reform.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise calls for a major review of Zero/Ten taxation to reduce the burden on individuals, while this motion concerned one specific new personal tax allowance amendment within a mini-budget; voting against a particular tax measure is not the same as opposing a review of Zero/Ten, and a member could reasonably reject this specific amendment while still genuinely supporting a broader systemic review.

Voting Pour delivers this

Restoring £656,000 to the Environment department's budget directly supports environmental protection work, bearing on the promise to protect the environment.

Voting Pour delivers this

A subsidised bus pass reduces car use and carbon emissions, supporting carbon neutrality and sustainability commitments.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. A subsidised bus pass could support carbon neutrality by encouraging use of public transport over private cars, but voting against this specific funding mechanism does not straightforwardly contradict a general promise to protect the environment and meet carbon neutrality commitments, as a member could reasonably oppose this particular measure on grounds of cost, design, or preference for alternative approaches while still pursuing the broader goal.

Voting Pour delivers this

Victoria Marine Lake is a facility in St Brelade and funding its repair and maintenance directly improves facilities in the constituency.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise is a general commitment to work with stakeholders to improve St Brelade's facilities, and voting against one specific funding amendment for Victoria Marine Lake maintenance could reflect a preference for a different funding mechanism or timing rather than opposition to improving facilities in the parish.

Voting Pour delivers this

Funding Statistics Jersey's administrative support enables evidence-based transparent government by maintaining independent statistical capacity.

Voting Pour delivers this

Funding Statistics Jersey supports the independent data and transparency infrastructure that underpins open government.