Thomas John Albert Binet

Voting Pour delivers this

The Gas Place Primary School Site amendment concerns the use of a States-owned site, relevant to releasing States-owned sites for development to ease the housing crisis.

Voting Pour delivers this

Investing stamp duty uplift into first-time buyer funds directly supports easing the housing crisis for those trying to enter the market.

Considered and set aside: this motion does not bear on the promise. The promise concerned accelerating release of States-owned sites for development, while the motion was about allocating stamp duty revenue from second-home purchases into first-time buyer funds — a different mechanism in the same broad housing area that does not bear on releasing States-owned land.

Voting Pour delivers this

Fort Regent Development amendment concerns developing a major States-owned site, directly relevant to the promise of accelerating release of States-owned sites for development.

Voting Pour delivers this

The motion on the proposed use of the former Jersey Gas site requests reconsideration of a States-owned site's use, relevant to accelerating release for development.

Voting Pour delivers this

The amendment on empty residential properties addresses bringing unused properties back into use, bearing on easing the housing crisis.

Voting Pour delivers this

Affordable Housing Provision at the Waterfront concerns developing a States-owned site for housing, advancing the promise to release States-owned sites to ease the housing crisis.

Voting Pour delivers this

Meanwhile Use of the Former Gas Place Site concerns the use of a States-owned site, relevant to the promise of accelerating release of such sites for development.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise concerns accelerating release of States-owned sites for development generally, while this motion concerns a specific "meanwhile use" of one particular site (the former Gas Place), which is a temporary interim use arrangement rather than a decision about releasing the site for substantive development, so opposing it does not clearly contradict a promise about accelerating development releases.

Voting Contre delivers this

Deferring the Kensington Place Andium Homes land sale would delay releasing a States-owned site for housing development; voting contre advances the promise of accelerating such releases.

Voting Contre delivers this

This amendment to the empty residential properties amendment would weaken measures to bring empty homes back into use, working against the promise to ease the housing crisis.

Voting Pour delivers this

This second amendment to the empty residential properties amendment relates to addressing unused housing stock, bearing on easing the housing crisis.

Voting Pour delivers this

The amendment on multi-morbidity GP consultations concerns funding for frontline health services, bearing on the promise to increase investment in health service staff.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise is a general directional commitment to increase investment in frontline health staff, while the motion concerns one specific funding mechanism (multi-morbidity GP consultations), and a member could vote against this particular measure while still honestly pursuing the broader goal through other means.

Voting Pour delivers this

Free GP visits for children and young people represents increased investment in frontline health services, directly relevant to the promise.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise concerns increasing investment and support for frontline health staff, while the motion addresses free GP visits for children and young people — a related but distinct policy area where a member could reasonably oppose this specific mechanism while still pursuing the broader promise through other means.

Voting Pour delivers this

The Health and Community Services Interim Board motion directly concerns governance and oversight of health services, bearing on the promise to increase investment and support for frontline health staff.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The motion concerns the establishment or amendment of an interim board—a governance mechanism—rather than directly deciding on investment levels or support for frontline staff, so voting against it does not plainly contradict a promise to increase investment and support for frontline health workers.

Voting Pour delivers this

Funding of Acute Cardiac Nursing is a direct investment in frontline health service staff, bearing on the promise to reverse decline in health services.

Voting Pour delivers this

The Vaccination Service amendment increases investment in a frontline health service, bearing on the promise to support frontline health staff.

Voting Pour delivers this

Amendment on Vaccination Service funding directly supports frontline health service provision, relevant to the promise.

Voting Pour delivers this

Medical Hosiery and wound dressing funding is a specific investment in frontline health services, relevant to the promise to increase health service investment.

Voting Contre delivers this

A freeze on public health staff appointments works against increasing investment and support for frontline health staff; voting contre would oppose the freeze and advance the promise.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. Although the member promised to increase investment and support for frontline health staff, voting for a freeze on public health staff appointments could reflect a judgement about priorities, efficiency, or the distinction between "public health" administrative roles and "frontline" clinical staff, rather than a straightforward contradiction of the promise.

Voting Pour delivers this

Amendment concerning New Healthcare Facilities Programme expenditure relates to investment in health services, bearing on the promise to increase health service investment.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise is a general directional commitment to increase investment in frontline health staff, while the motion concerns a specific capital expenditure programme for new healthcare facilities, and voting against one particular budget amendment does not clearly contradict the broader pledge, as the member may have opposed this specific mechanism or funding approach while still supporting the general aim.

Voting Pour delivers this

The Health and Care Jersey Advisory Board and Partnership Board amendment concerns governance of health services, relevant to the promise of increasing support for frontline health staff.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise concerns increasing investment and support for frontline health staff, while the motion concerns the governance structure of advisory and partnership boards, which is a procedural/mechanism matter rather than a direct commitment to investment or staffing levels.

Voting Contre delivers this

A freeze on public health staff appointments directly undermines support for frontline health staff; voting contre advances the promise.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise to increase investment and support for frontline health staff is a general directional commitment, and whether voting for a freeze on public health staff appointments contradicts it depends on judgements about which staff count as "frontline," whether a freeze is temporary or harmful, and whether other measures compensate—none of which is self-evident from the promise alone.

Voting Pour delivers this

Moving £240,000 to the States of Jersey Police represents increased investment in frontline public services, touching the promise to increase investment in frontline staff.

Voting Pour delivers this

The motion on Our Hospital Project reporting directly concerns bringing proper financial and physical control to the hospital project, exactly matching the promise.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. Reporting arrangements are a procedural mechanism, and voting against one specific reporting motion does not straightforwardly contradict a general promise to bring the hospital project "under proper control," since the member could pursue that goal through different oversight or control measures.

Voting Pour delivers this

The amendment on hospital funding in the Government Plan directly concerns financial control of the new hospital project.

Voting Pour delivers this

The New Healthcare Facilities Programme paragraph (a) motion directly concerns the new hospital project, bearing on the promise of bringing it under proper control.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise is a general directional commitment to bring the hospital project under proper control, while the motion concerns a specific paragraph of the New Healthcare Facilities Programme, and voting against one particular programmatic measure does not plainly contradict the broader goal without knowing what that paragraph contained and whether supporting it was the only or best way to deliver "proper control."

Voting Pour delivers this

The amendment on New Healthcare Facilities Programme expenditure directly concerns financial control of the new hospital project.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise is a general directional commitment to control the hospital project physically and financially, and voting against one specific budget amendment concerning healthcare facilities expenditure could reflect a preference for a different funding mechanism or level rather than a rejection of the goal of proper control.

Voting Pour delivers this

The New Healthcare Facilities Programme paragraph (b) motion directly concerns the new hospital project's governance and delivery.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise to bring the hospital project "under proper control" is a general directional commitment, and without knowing the specific content of Paragraph (b) of the New Healthcare Facilities Programme motion, it cannot be determined whether voting against it plainly contradicts that goal or whether the member may have judged this particular measure to be the wrong mechanism for achieving proper control.

Voting Pour delivers this

Free GP visits for children and young people directly reduces costs for patients and increases investment in GP services, directly matching the promise.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise commits to increasing investment in GP services to reduce patient costs generally, but voting against this specific amendment (free GP visits for children and young people) could reflect disagreement with the particular mechanism, funding approach, or scope rather than rejection of the underlying commitment to reduce costs.

Voting Contre delivers this

The HIF (Health Insurance Fund) Transfer amendment concerns funding mechanisms that affect GP service investment; voting contre the amendment preserves health fund allocation for GP services.

Voting Pour delivers this

HIF Transfers amendment concerns the use of Health Insurance Fund resources relevant to GP service investment.

Voting Pour delivers this

Multi-morbidity GP consultations amendment concerns funding for GP services to reduce costs for patients, directly matching the promise to increase investment in GP services.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise is a general directional commitment to increase GP investment and reduce patient costs, while the motion concerned a specific amendment about multi-morbidity GP consultations, and voting against one particular mechanism does not straightforwardly contradict the broader promise, especially as the member may have opposed this specific measure while supporting the general aim through other means.

Voting Pour delivers this

The motion funds free GP visits for full-time students, directly increasing investment in GP services to reduce costs for patients.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise to increase investment in GP services and reduce costs is a general directional commitment, and voting against one specific proposed mechanism (free GP visits for full-time students) does not clearly contradict it, as the member could support the broader goal while opposing this particular measure on grounds of targeting, affordability, or preferred alternative approaches.

Voting Pour delivers this

Raising the share of Social Security contributions allocated to the Health Insurance Fund would increase funding available for GP services, reducing costs for patients.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise is a general commitment to increase investment in GP services to reduce patient costs, while the motion is one specific funding mechanism (adjusting Social Security contribution allocation by 0.5 percentage points), and a member could vote against this particular route while still honestly pursuing the broader goal through other means.

Voting Pour delivers this

The Jersey Business amendment concerns support for local business infrastructure, relevant to the promise of prioritising local businesses over external consultants.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. Without knowing the specific content of the twelfth amendment regarding Jersey Business, it is unclear whether voting against it contradicts the promise to prioritise local businesses, as the member may have opposed the particular mechanism or funding approach while still supporting the broader principle.

Voting Pour delivers this

Economy Strategy amendment concerns support for local economic development, relevant to the promise of prioritising local businesses and efficient use of taxpayers' money.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise is a general spending-efficiency principle, and without knowing whether Amendment 28 to the Economy Strategy specifically addressed the use of local versus external consultants or spending efficiency, voting against one amendment to the Government Plan does not plainly contradict that broad commitment, as the member may have opposed the amendment for unrelated reasons while still pursuing the underlying goal.

Voting Pour delivers this

Jersey Business Revenue Expenditure amendment concerns funding for a local business support body, directly relevant to the promise of prioritising local businesses.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. While the promise concerns efficient use of taxpayer money and prioritising local businesses over external consultants, the motion is a specific budget amendment to Jersey Business revenue expenditure, and voting against it could reflect concerns about the amendment's mechanism, funding level, or other bundled details rather than opposition to the underlying principle of supporting local businesses.

Voting Pour delivers this

Jersey Business and Digital Jersey Savings amendment concerns funding for local business support organisations, relevant to the promise of prioritising local businesses.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. While the promise concerns prioritising local businesses and avoiding external consultants, the motion is a specific budget amendment about savings related to Jersey Business and Digital Jersey, and it is not clear that voting against this amendment contradicts the promise, since a member could oppose particular funding cuts to those bodies while still genuinely pursuing efficient use of taxpayer money and support for local businesses through other means.

Voting Pour delivers this

Removing upper earnings caps for social security is a tax system change that affects low and middle earners, relevant to simplifying the tax system as promised.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise concerned raising the income tax threshold for low earners, whereas this motion addressed removing upper earnings caps—a different mechanism affecting higher earners—so voting against it does not plainly contradict the specific commitment made.

Voting Pour delivers this

Stage 2 of Independent Taxation is a significant tax system reform relevant to simplifying the tax system as promised.

Voting Pour delivers this

Marginal Relief amendment concerns the tax threshold structure that directly affects low earners, bearing on the promise to raise the income tax threshold.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise to raise the income tax threshold and simplify the tax system is a general directional commitment, and voting against one specific amendment about marginal relief does not plainly contradict it, as the member could oppose this particular mechanism while still pursuing the broader goals through other means.

Voting Pour delivers this

Removal of earnings cap amendment concerns the tax and contributions structure affecting low earners, relevant to the promise to raise thresholds for low earners.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise concerns raising the income tax threshold for low earners, whereas this amendment addresses removal of an earnings cap — a related but distinct tax mechanism — and voting against one specific tax amendment does not straightforwardly contradict a general commitment to threshold changes and simplification.

Voting Contre delivers this

Replacing the 20% standard rate with 25% would increase the tax burden rather than simplify or raise the threshold to benefit low earners, so voting against aligns with the promise.

Voting Pour delivers this

The motion proposes introducing a new personal tax allowance, directly advancing the promise to raise the income tax threshold to benefit low earners.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise was to raise the income tax threshold, and while this motion concerned a new personal tax allowance (a related but distinct mechanism), voting against one specific amendment does not clearly contradict the promise, as the member may have preferred a different route or mechanism to achieve the same goal of relieving low earners.

Voting Pour delivers this

Digital Services Platform amendment concerns investment in government technology to deliver more effective public administration, directly relevant to the promise.

Voting Pour delivers this

Transform Project amendment concerns the government's digital transformation programme to deliver more effective public administration using technology.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise is a general directional commitment to use technology for better public administration, while the motion concerns one specific budget amendment to a particular Transform Project, and voting against a specific funding or project amendment does not straightforwardly contradict the broader goal, as the member could have had reasons (cost, approach, timing) to oppose this specific measure while still pursuing the general aim.

Voting Contre delivers this

Amendment to the Climate Council proposition could weaken the environmental strategy mechanism; voting contre preserves the stronger environmental commitment.

Voting Pour delivers this

Establishing a Climate Council as amended supports producing and implementing an environmental strategy, relevant to the promise.

Voting Pour delivers this

Evidence-based Energy Strategy directly concerns producing and implementing an environmental strategy, matching the promise.

Voting Contre delivers this

Offshore Wind amendment could alter the scope of renewable energy policy; voting contre preserves the main offshore wind proposition which advances an environmental strategy.

Voting Pour delivers this

Offshore Wind policy directly relates to delivering an environmental/energy strategy, advancing the promise of producing and implementing an environmental strategy.

Voting Pour delivers this

Restoring £656,000 to the Environment department's budget directly supports investment in delivering an environmental strategy.

Voting Pour delivers this

A vote of no confidence in the Chief Minister directly bears on ministerial accountability and control across government, which is central to the promise of restoring ministerial control.

Voting Pour delivers this

The motion on States Employment Board annual reporting increases ministerial accountability and oversight across government, supporting the promise of restoring ministerial control.

Voting Pour delivers this

Whistleblowing legislation introduction is a mechanism to protect individuals raising complaints within government and the civil service, bearing on the promise about respecting individual rights and responding to complaints.

Voting Pour delivers this

Draft Income Tax (High Value Residents – Amendment) Law directly concerns the policy governing acceptance of 2(1)(e) high value residents, which is the specific policy named in the promise.

Voting Pour delivers this

Third Reading of the Draft Income Tax (High Value Residents – Amendment) Law is the final adoption of revised 2(1)(e) resident policy.

Voting Pour delivers this

Taxation of High Value Residents paragraph (a) directly concerns the policy governing 2(1)(e) residents, bearing on the promise to revise this policy.

Voting Pour delivers this

Taxation of High Value Residents paragraph (c) directly concerns the policy governing 2(1)(e) residents.

Voting Pour delivers this

Suspension of High Value Residents amendment directly concerns the 2(1)(e) policy the member promised to revise.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise was to "revise" the 2(1)(e) policy, which could encompass many different changes, while the motion proposed suspending the High Value Residents scheme entirely—a specific and more drastic measure than revision—so voting against suspension does not plainly contradict a promise merely to revise the policy.

Voting Pour delivers this

Capping the number of High Net Worth Individuals granted entitled status via Regulation 2(1)(e) directly concerns revising the policy governing acceptance of 2(1)(e) residents.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise was to "revise" the 2(1)(e) policy, which could encompass many forms of change, whereas the motion proposed one specific reform (capping numbers); a member could honestly oppose this particular mechanism while still pursuing revision through a different approach.

Voting Pour delivers this

The Skills Development Fund motion directly concerns promoting local skills training, which is the core of the promise to promote local skills training to reduce reliance on immigration.

Voting Contre delivers this

Reducing the residency requirement for the right to work would increase reliance on immigration rather than promoting local skills; voting contre aligns with the promise.

Voting Pour delivers this

Adjusting apprenticeship grants for inflation supports local skills training and apprenticeships, directly advancing the promise to promote local skills to reduce reliance on immigration.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise to promote local skills training is a general directional commitment, and voting against one specific amendment adjusting apprenticeship grants for inflation does not plainly contradict it — the member could oppose this particular mechanism while still pursuing the broader goal through other means.

Voting Pour delivers this

Reform of the composition of the States Assembly bears on the promise to reintroduce senators, as it concerns electoral structure.

Voting Pour delivers this

This amendment to the Re-instatement of Senators proposition directly concerns the mechanism for reinstating island-wide mandate senators for the 2026 election.

Voting Pour delivers this

Second amendment paragraph (a) to the Re-instatement of Senators proposition directly concerns reinstating senators.

Voting Pour delivers this

Second amendment paragraph (b) to the Re-instatement of Senators proposition directly concerns reinstating senators.

Voting Pour delivers this

Second amendment paragraph (c) to the Re-instatement of Senators proposition directly concerns reinstating senators.

Voting Pour delivers this

The main Re-instatement of Senators proposition is a direct, unambiguous test of the promise to reintroduce the island-wide mandate for 2026.

Voting Pour delivers this

Second Amendment to Re-instatement of Senators directly concerns the design of the senator reinstatement.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise was to reintroduce Senators for 2026, and this motion concerned reinstating Senators, but the member voted against a *specific amendment* to that proposal, which may have differed in mechanism, timing, or detail from the version the member supported, making it impossible to conclude without further context that voting against this particular amendment contradicts the underlying commitment.

Voting Pour delivers this

Paragraph (a) of Re-instatement of Senators directly concerns reinstating island-wide mandate senators.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The member promised to reintroduce Senators for 2026, but this was a specific amendment to the reinstatement proposition, and without knowing what paragraph (a) of the fourth amendment changed relative to the main proposition, the vote against one particular amendment cannot be straightforwardly equated to opposing the reinstatement of Senators altogether — the member may have supported the main goal while objecting to this specific amendment's wording or mechanism.

Voting Pour delivers this

Paragraph (c) of Re-instatement of Senators directly concerns reinstating island-wide mandate senators.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The member promised to reintroduce Senators for 2026, but this was a specific amendment (paragraph (c) of the fourth amendment to P.2-2025) rather than the principal motion itself, and voting against one particular amendment to a reinstatement proposal does not necessarily contradict the overall goal of reintroducing Senators, as the member may have opposed this specific drafting while supporting the broader objective through the main motion or other amendments.

Voting Pour delivers this

Fifth amendment to Re-instatement of Senators directly concerns the design of the senator reinstatement.

Voting Pour delivers this

Third amendment to Re-instatement of Senators directly concerns the design of the senator reinstatement.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise was to reintroduce Senators for 2026, and the motion concerned reinstating Senators, but the vote was on a *third amendment* to that proposition, meaning the member could have opposed this specific amendment while still supporting the overall goal of reinstating Senators through the unamended or differently-amended proposition.

Voting Pour delivers this

Re-instatement of Senators amendment directly concerns reinstating the island-wide mandate for 2026.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The member promised to reintroduce Senators but voted against a specific amendment to the reinstatement proposal, which could reflect disagreement with the amendment's particular terms rather than opposition to the principle of restoring the island-wide mandate itself.

Voting Pour delivers this

Re-instatement of Senators amendment directly concerns reinstating the island-wide mandate.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The member promised to reintroduce Senators but voted against a specific amendment to P.2-2025, and without knowing what the amendment changed relative to the base proposition, the vote could reflect opposition to the amendment's particular mechanism or terms rather than opposition to reinstating Senators per se.

Voting Pour delivers this

The main Re-instatement of Senators proposition is the direct test of the promise to reintroduce the island-wide mandate for 2026.

Voting Pour delivers this

Amendment to Draft Elections (Appointed Day) Act concerns the implementation date for electoral changes including senator reinstatement.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The motion is an amendment to an Appointed Day Act — a procedural/timing mechanism — rather than a direct vote on reintroducing the island-wide mandate (Senators), so the member could have opposed this specific amendment on procedural or timing grounds while still genuinely pursuing the manifesto promise through other means.

Voting Pour delivers this

Draft Elections (Appointed Day) Act concerns the commencement of the elections law enabling the senator reinstatement for 2026.

Voting Pour delivers this

Fourth Amendment to Draft Elections (Senators) Law directly concerns the design of the senator reinstatement for 2026.

Voting Pour delivers this

Amendment to Draft Elections (Senators) Law directly concerns the senator reinstatement.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The motion concerns an amendment to a Draft Elections (Senators) law rather than the law itself, and without knowing what the specific amendment proposed, a vote against an amendment to the Senators bill could reflect disagreement with the amendment's particular terms rather than opposition to reinstating Senators per se.

Voting Pour delivers this

Second Amendment to Draft Elections (Senators) Law directly concerns the design of the senator reinstatement.

Voting Pour delivers this

Third Amendment (as amended) to Draft Elections (Senators) Law directly concerns the senator reinstatement design.

Voting Pour delivers this

Articles of Draft Elections (Senators) Law directly implement the senator reinstatement for 2026.

Voting Pour delivers this

Third Reading of Draft Elections (Senators) Law is the final adoption of the senator reinstatement legislation.

Voting Pour delivers this

Draft Elections (Jersey) Amendment No 2 Law amendment concerns the electoral law changes required for the senator reinstatement.

Voting Pour delivers this

Draft Elections Amendment (Jersey) Commencement Act concerns bringing into force the elections law enabling senator reinstatement for 2026.

Voting Pour delivers this

Third amendment amendment to Draft Elections (Senators) Law directly concerns design details of the senator reinstatement.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The member promised to reintroduce Senators for 2026, and the main proposition (P.56/2025) presumably does that, but this vote concerns a specific amendment to that draft law, and voting against one amendment to a bill that otherwise delivers the promise is not the same as opposing the promise itself — the member could support the overall goal while objecting to a particular amendment's terms.

Voting Pour delivers this

An audit of government department vacancies directly addresses civil service efficiency and effectiveness, central to the promise to restore efficiency and morale within the civil service.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. An audit of government department vacancies is one specific procedural measure that could relate to civil service efficiency, but voting against it does not straightforwardly contradict a general commitment to restore civil service morale and effectiveness, as the member could reasonably judge this particular audit unnecessary or pursue the same goal by other means.

Voting Pour delivers this

Annual reporting by the States Employment Board increases accountability and oversight of the civil service workforce, bearing on the promise to restore civil service efficiency and morale.

Voting Pour delivers this

Cabinet Office Expenditure Savings directly concerns efficiency within the government's central administration, bearing on restoring civil service effectiveness.

Voting Pour delivers this

The motion on reporting of headcount and vacancies in government departments directly addresses transparency and efficiency within the civil service, bearing on the promise to restore efficiency and morale.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. Reporting headcount and vacancies is a procedural/transparency measure that could relate to civil service efficiency, but voting against one specific reporting mechanism does not plainly contradict a general promise to restore civil service efficiency, effectiveness, and morale, as a member could oppose this particular reporting format while pursuing the broader goal through other means.

Voting Pour delivers this

The motion on curbing growth of the public sector and an end-to-end review of government processes directly addresses civil service efficiency, central to the promise.

Considered and set aside: voting this way is not clearly a breach of the promise. The promise to restore civil service efficiency and morale is a general directional commitment, and voting against this particular motion (an end-to-end review of government processes) could reflect a judgement that this specific mechanism was not the right or best way to achieve that goal, rather than a rejection of the goal itself.