JEP Investigates: Value Jersey – Political movement or party in disguise?

ON the day that nominations closed, candidates who had made their intention to stand known received an unusual message in their inboxes.

Sent by Value Jersey under the subject line “Are you standing in the election?”, the email offered something rarely seen in the Island’s traditionally low-budget, largely independent political culture: professional campaign infrastructure.

For candidates juggling work, canvassing, speeches, hustings and leaflets, the movement offered help with “printed materials”, “campaign planning”, “writing speeches and emails”, research, and “tips and tools” to manage a campaign.

Better still, the email noted, “it can all be invoiced simply on your electoral expenses”.

This was not a simple PR service. Value Jersey – a branded political movement with its own policy platform and strategy – was inviting aligned independent candidates to, quite literally, buy in.

The result has been a wave of purple materials and shared slogans across the Island.

In some districts, voters now encounter clusters of candidates with near-identically styled posters appearing side-by-side. 

Electoral imprints on several posters identify the producer as “JT Print, 2 Jasper Close, Swinden [sic]” – the listed address of “Conservative Print”, which produces material for UK Tory councillors and is also the registered home address of Kate Tomlinson, who won a Conservative council seat in Swindon earlier this month.

Other links are more subtle. 

Some candidates have adopted elements of the movement’s colour scheme, branding or messaging.

For voters and rival politicians alike, Value Jersey has introduced a level of coordinated campaigning never before seen in the Island, sparking intense debate over where a political “movement” ends and something approaching a political party begins – and, crucially, who is footing the bill and whether their details should be transparent for electors to see.

As debate began to reach fever pitch, Value Jersey issued a statement at the conclusion of the bank holiday weekend on Monday, claiming “significant misinformation” was being spread, and insisting it has “rigorously adhered to all rules”.

The movement’s roots trace back to a stormy October evening at St Helier nightspot Sundown, where 100 supporters and curious onlookers gathered for Value Jersey’s official launch, which was compèred by the then-communications director Samantha Gleave.

The line-up that evening offered an early glimpse of the coalition Value Jersey was trying to assemble.

Among the speakers were Victoria College student Gabriel Raimondo, who warned of young Islanders leaving Jersey because it had become unaffordable; retailer Gerald Voisin, who argued entrepreneurship was being stifled; lecturer Claire de Than, who called for a skills audit; and businessperson Phil Romeril, who urged those interested in change to get involved.

Education psychologist Victoria Li also addressed the launch event, warning that young people in Jersey were growing up “anxious, uncertain and disempowered”.

All five are now standing for election and have endorsed Value Jersey. (Despite later appearing in a December Value Jersey publicity stunt involving 200 tins of baked beans stacked outside the States Chamber to symbolise ministers “kicking the can down the road” on economic policy, Ms Li, however, recently told the JEP that she had only appeared at the event to discuss education and is running as a strict independent.)

Former England netball captain Serena Guthrie, ex-politician Judy Martin, hotelier Robert Parker and cybersecurity Masters graduate Cameron Monro have also all declared that they endorse Value Jersey as election candidates.

At the launch, Value Jersey stressed it was not a political party, but a “movement” developing a manifesto that independents could choose to adopt. 

This distinction allowed the group to establish its distinctive branding and voice months before the regulated election period governing candidate expenditure began, with purple graphics, targeted social-media content and online videos becoming increasingly visible across local digital platforms.

Helping to build that brand was the Messina Group, a powerhouse consultancy founded by Jim Messina, the mastermind behind Barack Obama’s successful 2012 US re-election campaign.

The Group openly describes itself as specialising in “data-driven campaign strategies” and “next-generation campaign tools and tactics” across election environments around the world. Its international campaigns material states “we want to become part of your team”, contrasting its approach with consultants who merely “parachute in, deliver top-line data, and then leave”.

Indeed, Messina consultants have now become familiar faces on Jersey’s campaign trail, attending hustings, visibly supporting Value Jersey-aligned candidates from the audience, and huddling with them before and after events.

One is Justin Lines, the firm’s Deputy Director of International Campaigns, whose online bio boasts a specialisation in “asymmetric contests and fragile political environments”. Mr Lines’ name appears on several uncategorised sections of the Value Jersey website.

Spotted alongside him has been Lottie Dane, a former senior parliamentary assistant to UK shadow foreign secretary Tom Tugendhat, whose LinkedIn profile appears to have been recently deleted or made private.

In Jersey, where campaigns have traditionally been modest affairs run by individuals, families and volunteers, the arrival of professional operatives has been striking – though Value Jersey continues to define itself as a “voluntary organisation founded by Islanders frustrated by inaction on the serious economic challenges we face”.

The Messina Group openly encourages clients to ensure their narrative becomes the lens through which voters view everything else.

In an article analysing Democratic campaign tactics in the United States, Mr Messina argued that modern campaigns should focus not simply on turnout but on persuading swing voters through tightly targeted messaging and extensive use of digital and television advertising.

Meanwhile, in an April article published by the consultancy, chief operating officer Tara Corrigan advised: “…Know your frame, own it early, and don’t let your opponent take it from you.” She also described one of the consultancy’s core strategic priorities as to “make the campaign a favorable referendum, move quickly to define it, and draw a clear contrast with the opposition”. 

Some feel that Value Jersey has done exactly that. 

Long before the election window opened, it launched an aggressive digital campaign across YouTube and social media urging Islanders to take part in its consultation, alongside an island-wide mailout, further establishing its public profile.

The output became the ‘Purple Book’ – a manifesto focusing on the “cost of living”, “cost of government” and the “cost of doing business”, which they are asking candidates to endorse.

Several rival candidates told the JEP they felt Value Jersey was attempting to turn the election into a vote on cheaper groceries.

While few disputed the appeal, they noted that the Island’s intricate supply-chain realities make bringing in a new, low-cost supermarket incredibly complex – and therefore felt “cheaper supermarkets” to be beyond the ability of any single candidate, or “movement”, to genuinely guarantee.

In contrast, Value Jersey maintains that taking quick action on loosening planning rules and dismantling economic barriers to entry would pave the way for a major chain to enter the market.

Board member Rowland Huelin previously told the JEP that he felt the movement had “given lots of independent candidates the confidence to start talking about [the cost of living]” and a network to work together productively on solutions.

“There’s a commonality within the election… It’s about bringing people together, whether they have actively endorsed Value Jersey policies or not.” 

He reiterated that candidates who take up the offer of Value Jersey support will be billed and expected to itemise their campaign spending when submitting their election expenses.

“In coming together, we have been able to get a much better price… My budget will be hundreds of pounds, not thousands,” said St Helier South candidate Judy Martin.

Fellow constituency runner Samantha Gleave told the JEP she had “bought the whole thing” because she felt she needed the support.

“There were different levels,” she told the JEP. “You buy into having help with your posters, you can buy into having a little bit of marketing help. It’s been really helpful and it’s also built up a little community amongst us.” 

She added that the arrangement had been transparent from the beginning.

“We literally emailed all of the candidates about it,” she said. “It’s no secret.”

But the real controversy, many argue, is not what candidates are spending – it is what the central “movement” is spending.

Under Jersey law, registered political parties must disclose donations above certain thresholds. 

In 2022, Reform Jersey disclosed £10,000 from the Unite union, while the Jersey Alliance party declared £25,000 from businessman and Jersey resident Adam Mackie.

Because Value Jersey is not a political party, its core donor base remains unclear.

Alongside early funding estimated to be in the tens of thousands, the group is now soliciting small-scale public donations.

On Saturday evening, Value Jersey emailed individuals who had participated in its consultation exercise urging them to “help keep up the momentum”.

“We want to print some leaflets to share our policies with Islanders over the coming weeks,” the email stated. “Are you able to help by chipping in?”

The message linked to an online donation page offering contribution options ranging from £10 to £1,020.26.

In a statement issued on Monday afternoon, Value Jersey said: “As of today, we have accepted a total of 58 donations since we launched”, ranging from £1 to £10,000, with “the vast majority” below £500. 

It did not state how many donations were received before its public launch or after the weekend fundraising email.

It added that all donations had come from individuals “living or operating in Jersey”, except for one UK-based donor whose business operates on the Island.

Addressing criticism around donor anonymity, the movement added: “Some of these donors have chosen to share publicly that they have donated, while others have wanted to do so anonymously.

“We respect that, and would be liable under [the Jersey Office of the Information Commissioner] if we named them without their permission.”

The statement did not clarify the total amount raised or the amount spent on Messina.

Following the statement, the JEP asked Value Jersey for further information on Messina’s role, and how much of its work had been funded by donors rather than candidate support packages.

Mr Huelin simply responded: “We are trying to solve the serious issue of successive governments failing to address the economic challenges Jersey faces. We have a £118m deficit. Islanders are about to be hit by another round of inflation, and our economy is at real risk. It is no secret that The Messina Group has been helping Value Jersey  campaign for change.

“As stated today, Value Jersey is not funding any candidates. All independent candidates will declare their campaign expenditure in the normal and appropriate manner.”

On Friday, the growing debate forced the Jersey Electoral Authority (JEA) to issue a rare public guidance note.

The document repeatedly emphasised that Jersey law does not contain a statutory definition of a “political movement”. It also stated that a movement is not considered a political party unless formally registered under the Political Parties (Registration) Law.

Crucially, it noted that while discounted services must be declared as ‘notional expenses’, questions around compliance are generally only examined after polling day.

Any potential referrals to the Attorney General regarding spending violations only occur after post-election expense declarations are submitted.

More significantly, the guidance outlined the distinction between candidate election expenses and third-party spending.

Under the Public Elections (Expenditure and Donations) (Jersey) Law 2014, expenses incurred “with the candidate’s express or implied consent” are generally treated as candidate election expenses and count towards that candidate’s spending cap.

Where spending occurs without such consent, however, it may instead constitute third-party expenditure subject to separate restrictions and declaration requirements.

The JEA guidance also specifically addressed situations where services are supplied “for free or at a discount”, stating that such arrangements may constitute donations or “notional expenses” requiring declaration.

The authority stopped short of making any judgment about Value Jersey itself.

In its statement, however, Value Jersey said it had met with the JEA on 30 April “to talk through our structure, planned activities and to seek their advice”, adding that the authority had “raised no concerns or issues with us”.

The authority also noted that it can request invoices, receipts and proof of expenses from candidates and qualifying third parties if complaints arise.

However, it stressed that any concerns potentially requiring referral to the Attorney General would generally only be considered after election expense declarations are submitted following polling day.

Reform Jersey leader Sam Mézec criticised that largely retrospective system as inadequate.

Mr Mézec also told the JEP that his party had become frustrated by what he described as limited regulatory preparedness, claiming that when Reform approached the JEA seeking to declare donations early so electors could “see for themselves”, they were told the necessary compliance forms were not yet ready.

In practice, questions about Value Jersey’s funding, international backing and expenditure may not be answered until after Islanders have voted.

What also remains to be seen is the effect this machine – only this month registered as a Jersey company, having operated since September via the UK apparently “because the red tape in Jersey was too expensive and time-consuming” – will have on the Island’s political landscape, should a significant bloc of their candidates win.

Though Mr Huelin maintains it is not a party “whip”, Value Jersey has already announced plans to introduce an undefined “independent accountability mechanism” to ensure elected members vote in line with the Purple Book.

Whether this amounts to a hostile takeover of Jersey politics or the emergence of a more modern and productive electoral culture is likely to become one of the defining debates of this election – and perhaps one less likely to be decided by regulators than voters themselves.

This article was first published in the Jersey Evening Post on 26 May 2026 – read the original here.