The people of Guernsey have been asked, again and again, to consider GST and its various rebranded, revised, repackaged, and reinvented iterations. No matter what label is attached to it, the principle remains the same: a broad consumption tax that ultimately places a greater burden on ordinary households while increasing the cost of living across the island. I believe the time has come to send a clear and unmistakable message: Guernsey does not want GST, does not need GST, and does not require it under any alternative name.
Relying on creating new taxes as a primary economic strategy is often a lazy and short-term approach because it focuses on extracting more from existing activity rather than expanding or improving the underlying economy or taking on underlying problems. While taxation is necessary to fund public services, simply introducing new taxes signals a lack of innovation in policy design and overall vision. In contrast, more effective economic strategy usually comes from building new sectors, improving productivity, and creating frameworks that attract fresh capital and business activity, rather than increasing the burden on what already exists.
Before introducing any new tax regime, policymakers must first demonstrate that the existing system is functioning effectively. Many islanders continue to experience significant delays in income tax assessments, repayments, and correspondence. Some have waited years for matters that should have been resolved promptly. It is difficult to justify creating an entirely new tax system when the current one is still struggling to deliver basic services in a timely manner.
The States of Guernsey should also demonstrate a proven ability to control and reduce its own costs before seeking additional revenue from taxpayers. Families and businesses are expected to manage their budgets responsibly, scrutinise expenditure, and justify major spending decisions. Government should be held to no lesser standard. There must be far stronger accountability for the spending of taxpayers’ money. Islanders have witnessed expensive projects that have failed to deliver on their promises while consuming vast sums of public funds. The failed IT transition programme, with costs reported at over £21 million stands as one of the clearest examples of how poor oversight, weak accountability, and flawed decision-making can leave taxpayers paying for costly mistakes.
Supporters of GST often point to exemptions, rebates, offsets, credits, relief schemes, and support packages designed to protect lower-income households and local businesses. Yet every exemption creates further complexity. Every relief scheme requires administration. Every support mechanism requires monitoring, enforcement, assessment, and review. The result is not simplicity, it is the creation of an increasingly complicated tax structure requiring more bureaucracy, more administration, more civil servants, and higher operating costs. Those costs do not disappear. They become part of the system itself and must be funded year after year.
History elsewhere has shown that once such systems are established, pressure often grows to increase rates over time as revenues fail to keep pace with expenditure, exemptions expand, and administrative costs rise. Islanders should therefore ask themselves a simple question: if GST is introduced at one rate today, what confidence do we have that it will remain there tomorrow?
We are already facing serious challenges that threaten the long-term health and sustainability of our island. Young people increasingly question whether they can build their future here. Rising cost of living pressures, a persistent shortage of affordable housing, and the continued outmigration of younger, working-age islanders are already contributing to a declining birth rate and a narrowing local skills base. As qualified individuals leave and fewer young people are able to remain on the island, gaps in the labour market increasingly have to be filled through external and costly recruitment and immigration to maintain essential services and economic activity. This trend is likely to continue if underlying issues remain unresolved, leading to a steadily ageing population alongside growing reliance on inward migration. As the proportion of older residents increases, so too will the associated demands on public services, particularly in relation to pensions, healthcare and long-term care provision.
Without meaningful structural change, these combined pressures risk placing further strain on both public finances and the island’s long-term social and economic sustainability. None of these problems will be solved by a regressive tax on consumption; it will only make things worse. GST risks becoming the cork that finally sinks the island’s economic prospects; not because it alone creates these problems, but because it adds further pressure to households and businesses already struggling under existing burdens. At a time when Guernsey should be focused on affordability, productivity, housing supply, government efficiency, and economic competitiveness, introducing a new consumption tax moves the conversation in entirely the wrong direction.
The GST promise vs Jersey’s reality
Jersey should serve as a warning, not a blueprint. Islanders there were told GST would begin at a modest 3%, only for it to later rise to 5%. They were told support mechanisms would protect households, yet successive governments have continued to debate compensation schemes, exemptions, bonuses, and reforms to address its impact. The result is exactly what many opponents predicted: a more complex tax system, more bureaucracy, and a tax that became larger than originally promised.
Some continue to defend the policy, but after nearly two decades of experience, there is little reason for Guernsey to assume we would somehow be immune from the same pressures that led to higher rates and greater complexity in Jersey. If our nearest neighbour has struggled to make GST the simple, low-impact solution that was promised, why should we believe the outcome here would be any different?
We have to acknowledge that the current States is, in many respects, revisiting an idea already set in motion by previous administrations. However, continuation of a policy path simply because it has been previously explored does not make it inevitable or correct. An idea that has strongly lost public confidence or fails to meet the realities of today’s economic pressures should not be kept alive out of administrative momentum alone. We are not obliged to inherit and perpetuate outdated directions simply because they were once drafted.
Instead, there is a genuine opportunity to return to the drawing board with fresh thinking, to actively listen to the concerns of islanders, and to explore genuinely new and sustainable sources of economic revenue. Guernsey does not need to remain anchored to legacy tax models or repeatedly rework the same concept under different labels; it can choose innovation, efficiency, and forward-looking policy instead of revisiting tired frameworks that no longer reflect current needs.
This is not a matter of left-wing, centre or right-wing ideology. The concerns raised here are not rooted in party politics or political identity, but in practical questions of fairness, affordability, competence and long-term sustainability. Whether one leans politically left or right, the fundamental issues remain the same: the cost of living, the efficiency of government, the effectiveness of public spending and the direction of the island’s economic future.
Simultaneously, we are living through a broader generational shift in civic and political life. Many of those currently holding decision-making roles come from an earlier era shaped by different economic realities and policy assumptions, while newer generations are now reaching full civic and economic maturity and will increasingly inherit the long-term consequences of today’s decisions. In reality, the effects of current policy choices will extend even further, shaping the lives of today’s children and future grandchildren in ways that may not yet be fully visible. This is not unusual or negative in itself; such transitions are a natural and recurring feature of democratic societies, but it does highlight the risk of an older generation clinging onto ideas and frameworks that are long gone, and no longer reflect present-day realities. Real reform requires recognising when those models have reached their limits and accepting that fresh perspectives are not only legitimate, but necessary.
Public mandate and erosion of public confidence
The opposition to GST has already been clearly and repeatedly expressed. Many islanders have voiced their disagreement through public protests, signed petitions in significant numbers and supported candidates whose manifestos explicitly opposed the introduction of GST. Despite this, there remains a persistent sense that these signals are not fully reflected in the direction of policy or decision-making.
Alongside this, there is a growing gap between the electorate and its elected representatives, reflected in increasing levels of distrust and a sense of disconnect between public sentiment and policy outcomes. For many, the ongoing GST debate has become a clear example of this divide, reinforcing the perception that established democratic expression is not effectively carried through into action. As this pattern appears to persist, frustration naturally grows and confidence in our government and its representatives risks being further eroded.
The people united – Our voice, our island
After years of protest, petitions, public consultations and electoral mandates expressing opposition to GST, there is a growing sense that the conventional democratic channels have failed to deliver meaningful change or effective opposition. Many islanders feel they have repeatedly made their views known, only to see the same proposals return in different forms and under different labels.
In that context, an island-wide strike could be considered as a last resort. A coordinated day of peaceful action that would serve as a powerful and unmistakable statement that public concern has reached a point where it can no longer be ignored or dismissed. It would not represent a rejection of democracy, but rather an appeal to it; a demonstration of the depth of feeling amongst those who believe their voices have been heard, but not truly acted upon.
I therefore suggest an island-wide day of peaceful action and solidarity. Encouraging workers, businesses, community groups and residents to stand together and demand:
- No GST, VAT, sales tax, consumption tax, or equivalent rebranded alternative.
- Meaningful government cost reductions before any consideration of new taxation.
- Strong accountability and transparency for public spending, including an independent watchdog commission with real authority to monitor government spending, expose inefficiency and take (legal) action where taxpayers’ money is not being used responsibly.
- Resolution of existing tax administration failures and backlogs through urgent modernisation of outdated systems and the implementation of faster, more reliable repayment and processing procedures.
- Policies that address housing affordability, economic opportunity and wealth inequality.
- Protection of working and middle-income households from further financial pressure.
- A long-term vision for Guernsey based on growth, efficiency and fairness rather than ever-expanding taxation.
Economic opportunities and long-term strategy for guernsey’s future growth
Guernsey’s best economic opportunities lie less in mass production and more in becoming a high-trust regulatory, financial and specialist innovation hub. In agriculture-linked sectors like cannabis, the strongest case is medical cannabis rather than recreational use, focused on high-quality production for export into nearby European and UK markets, but even more importantly on building surrounding services such as investment funds, insurance, IP ownership, and compliance structures.
Beyond cannabis, the broader opportunity set includes becoming a regulatory sandbox jurisdiction for emerging industries like digital assets, AI company structuring and tokenised finance; expanding its strength in financial services into new asset classes (carbon credits, space finance, biotech/longevity funds); and leveraging its geography and marine environment for a blue economy hub (offshore energy, marine biotech, aquaculture, and ocean-related finance).
A recurring theme across all options is that Guernsey is unlikely to win by scale or low costs, but can win by being fast, stable, well-regulated and financially sophisticated, capturing high-value layers of emerging industries rather than competing in commodity production.
Medical cannabis production and export
Focus on regulated, pharmaceutical-grade cannabis rather than recreational use. The real value would likely come from exporting to nearby UK and European markets, where demand already exists and building credibility through strict compliance and quality standards.
Cannabis financial and professional services hub
Instead of only growing cannabis, Guernsey could host investment funds, insurance, banking services, IP ownership and company structuring for global cannabis businesses. This captures higher-value “support layers” of the industry.
Digital asset and tokenised finance jurisdiction
Create clear legal frameworks for stablecoins, tokenised securities and blockchain-based funds. This leverages Guernsey’s existing financial services reputation to attract fintech and crypto infrastructure firms seeking regulatory clarity.
AI and emerging technology legal structures
Offer specialised company and IP frameworks for AI firms, including model licensing, revenue-sharing structures and cross-border ownership solutions. This targets a fast-growing industry with complex legal needs.
Regulatory sandbox for innovation industries
Position Guernsey as a place where new industries (fintech, biotech, AI, energy tech) can be tested under controlled regulation. This attracts experimental business models that struggle in larger, slower jurisdictions.
Blue economy and marine innovation hub
Develop offshore renewable energy finance, aquaculture, marine biotechnology, and ocean conservation funding. This aligns naturally with Guernsey’s geography and maritime environment.
Carbon markets and environmental finance
Build infrastructure for trading carbon credits, biodiversity credits and green investment funds. This leverages global demand for climate-related financial products.
Space and high-tech finance niche
Specialise in funding satellites, space infrastructure and related insurance markets. While niche, these are high-value sectors that already rely on financial centres.
Longevity and biotech investment structures
Host funds and clinical research structures focused on ageing, medical innovation and biotech startups. This captures long-term growth sectors with high capital intensity.
Offshore wind and tidal energy
A large-scale renewable option that could harness strong Atlantic winds around Guernsey to generate substantial electricity. It could support energy independence, reduce reliance on imported fuels and potentially allow surplus energy export in the long term. A promising option due to Guernsey’s exceptionally strong and predictable tidal currents. Tidal stream technology could provide reliable, consistent renewable power and position the island as a leader in marine energy innovation.
Realising or exploring these opportunities would require the States of Guernsey to take an active and coordinated role in shaping the island’s economic direction. This would involve not simply adjusting or retooling existing, potentially regressive tax structures, but instead focusing on building forward-looking regulatory frameworks and economic platforms that attract new industries. The emphasis would need to be on creating clear, competitive licensing regimes, enabling investment structures and reducing barriers for enterprise. Just as importantly, the States would need to actively support businesses and entrepreneurs in making use of these opportunities, ensuring that innovation can be tested, scaled, and retained within a stable and well-governed jurisdiction.
By Lars Janssen
