Value Jersey has made a useful contribution to the election debate.
It has surfaced a set of ideas that speak directly to pressures Islanders feel – cost of living, competition, government efficiency, and economic growth (JEP 4 April). That in itself is welcome. Jersey benefits when groups step forward with proposals and invite scrutiny.
But scrutiny matters.
Because when tested as a whole, this is not yet a programme for governing.
This is a set of propositions, not a plan for governing.
What is the underlying model?
Before applying that test, it is fair to recognise the logic that does sit behind the list.
Most of the proposals draw on a familiar economic approach:
• increase competition
• reduce barriers to entry
• remove regulatory constraints
• improve state efficiency
The intended outcome is clear: lower prices through more open markets and a more productive public sector.
That is a coherent instinct.
But a governing programme requires more than a consistent instinct. It requires structure, trade-offs, and delivery.
Three tests of a governing programme
A credible programme for government should pass three basic tests:
1. Clarity of purpose and priorities
2. Distributional fairness – who benefits, who pays?
3. Institutional feasibility – how it is delivered?
Measured against those tests, the current list falls short.
1. Clarity of purpose: what is the priority when choices must be made?
Each item on the list is individually understandable. But government is not a list of individually reasonable ideas. It is a system of choices under constraint.
• What is prioritised first – cheaper food, cheaper credit, or preventative health checks?
• If deregulation conflicts with consumer protection, which takes precedence?
• What is the sequencing?
A programme answers these questions. A list does not.
2. Distributional fairness: who benefits – and who does not?
Lower prices are attractive. But they do not affect everyone equally.
• Increased competition may reduce costs – but what happens to local employment and local suppliers?
• Opening markets may benefit consumers – but does it shift value off-Island rather than retain it locally?
• Cutting £100m of public spending sounds decisive – but where does that fall in practice?
These are not peripheral concerns. They are the core of policy design.
A programme answers “who benefits” and “who pays”. Value Jersey’s list does neither.
The central omission: housing and rental cost
Most striking, however, is what is not on the list.
For many Islanders, the single biggest driver of cost of living is not supermarkets, taxis, or banking.
It is housing – specifically rent.
A significant proportion of Islanders spend 30% or more of their income on rent, meeting the standard definition of rental stress.
And yet:
• there is no proposal on housing supply
• no reference to rental affordability
• no acknowledgement of the structural role housing plays in the cost of living
This is not a minor gap.
It is a missing pillar.
Any serious attempt to address cost of living in Jersey must engage directly with housing – both private and public sector provision.
Without that, the analysis remains incomplete.
3. Institutional feasibility: how does this actually happen?
Most of the proposals depend on:
• planning reform
• regulatory change
• new market entrants
• system-wide behavioural change
That requires institutional coordination across government, regulators, and the market.
This is where Jersey has repeatedly struggled.
We do not lack ideas.
We struggle to translate them into delivery across institutional boundaries.
A programme would show:
• who is responsible
• what powers are required
• how implementation is sequenced
• how success is measured
That level of detail is, so far, absent.
What this means in practice?
Taken together, the Value Jersey list reflects a clear set of economic instincts.
But instincts are not enough.
A programme for government is not just a direction of travel. It is a map.
At present, this is a direction.
Not yet a route.
A closing reflection
None of this is about questioning intent.
Value Jersey has helped move the debate forward.
But Jersey’s challenge is not a shortage of ideas.
It is the gap between diagnosis and delivery.
That is where my own approach sits.
Practical reform, not promises.
That means:
• focusing on what can actually be delivered
• being explicit about trade-offs
• and ensuring that reforms work within Jersey’s institutional reality
There may well be areas of alignment – particularly where competition, efficiency, and reform can be made to work in practice.
But that requires moving from propositions to programme.
And that is the work still to be done.
