Labour taking Reform threat in Wales ‘seriously', says Morgan
She said: 'We're taking it very seriously, and we think the threat from Reform is a very serious threat.'
Her interview comes as polling by More In Common on behalf of Sky News found 28% of people in Wales would back Reform at the Senedd elections in 2026, putting the party in first place.
Mr Farage's party is targeting the Senedd as it looks to build on its success at the English local elections earlier this year, and unveiled former Wales secretary David Jones as another ex-Tory defector on Monday as part of its push.
The poll, published on Tuesday, showed Plaid Cymru in second place on 26% and Labour in third place on 23%, before a long drop to the Conservatives on 10% and the Liberal Democrats on 7%.
If the results were replicated next year, it could mean the end of Labour's 26 years of domination in Wales, where it has held power since devolution.
Baroness Morgan acknowledged there was 'a possibility' that Reform could become the largest party in the Senedd, saying it was 'really concerning', but added it would be 'difficult for them to rule by themselves'.
But she ruled out entering a coalition with the party, saying: 'I wouldn't touch Reform with a bargepole.'
The First Minister also insisted that Labour would be able to win voters back by being 'authentic' and 'clear with people about what we stand for', rather than trying to 'out-Reform Reform'.
She said: 'I think we've got to lead with our values. We're about bringing communities together, not dividing them, and I do think that what Reform is interested in is dividing people and people do need to make choices on things like that.
'So, what I won't be doing in Wales is chasing Reform down a path where we can try and out-Reform Reform. I'm not interested in that, because those aren't my values.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
an hour ago
- BBC News
Automatic registration looking unlikely for next Senedd election
It will be a "tall order" to ensure that the automatic registration of voters is in place for the next Senedd election, the first minister has Welsh government had hoped to introduce the changes ahead of next May's former cabinet member who helped drive the plans described Eluned Morgan's comments as "disappointing".It is estimated that around 400,000 people in Wales are either missing or incorrectly registered. Automatic voter registration would mean that voters would not have to register themselves in order to be able to the current system, voters must register to vote authorities must then contact households to check that the existing electoral register is accurate and to invite residents to apply to be on the Senedd passed legislation to enable automatic voter registration last year. When the new law was first proposed, the government's counsel general at the time Mick Antoniw said the "ambition" was for the changes to be in place in time for the 2026 Senedd election. Asked by Plaid Cymru Member of the Senedd (MS) Adam Price on Tuesday if the government was still committed to that timetable, Morgan said: "It is important to manage expectations around the ability to roll out those automatic registrations in time for the next election."Automatic registration pilot schemes currently under way in four local authorities are due to end in September and Morgan told the Senedd the results would then need to be evaluated by the Electoral Commission."I think we've got to be realistic and practical about what that means in practice, because there will be quite a lot of work to be done before there's an ability to roll them out nationally," she said."I think that it's going to be a tall order within about three months."Local authorities have made it clear that they think that might be very difficult."Responding to the comments, Antoniw - now a backbench Labour MS - said: "It is very disappointing that it will not be in place for 2026 so we must redouble efforts to maximise registration under the current paper registration system that remains."Antoniw added that automatic registration "must" be in place for the 2027 local Blair, director of Electoral Reform Society Cymru, described the news as "disappointing but not a surprise"."The timescale, set by the Welsh government themselves, has made this decision seem somewhat inevitable," she said. "The Welsh government should be clear. "They should either show real leadership in making automatic registration happen or confirm as soon as possible what plans will be in place in its stead in just ten months' time to ensure as many people as possible are registered to vote."
.png%3Ftrim%3D0%2C0%2C0%2C0%26width%3D1200%26height%3D800%26crop%3D1200%3A800&w=3840&q=100)
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Readers torn on wealth tax – from ‘the only counterbalance' to ‘utterly counter-productive'
Chris Blackhurst's claim that Britain 'simply can't afford' a wealth tax has sparked fierce debate among Independent readers, who were deeply split over whether taxing extreme wealth is fair, workable, or economically sensible. Many backed Lord Kinnock's call for what one commenter dubbed an 'obscene wealth tax', arguing that while wages have stagnated, asset values have skyrocketed. They claimed that taxing the ultra-wealthy is the only way to rebalance a system rigged in favour of those who make more money from owning than working. Several called for a land value tax too, insisting it's fairer, harder to dodge, and long overdue. Others weren't convinced, with some questioning the practicality of taxing wealth, especially when it's tied up in private businesses or property. One pointed out: 'How do you tax the value of something that can't be easily sold?' Another warned that entrepreneurs would simply leave the country, taking jobs and investment with them. There were strong words for Labour, with accusations that the party is chasing populism over sound economics. But just as many readers argued that the real risk is doing nothing – letting inequality grow while public services crumble. Here's what you had to say: Obscene wealth tax It's not a wealth tax we need. It's an obscene wealth tax. When simply having money can make more money than earning it can, and a class of super-rich see no shame in possessing such grotesque amounts of wealth, an obscene wealth tax is the only possible counterbalance to the inevitable concentration of money in the hands of an ever-shrinking number that capitalism enforces. It may not work. But we have to try. HeHeHitThatTooWellClive Land value tax The government should urgently look at resurrecting an idea that nearly became law a hundred years ago – a land value tax. There is so much money tied up in property and, by definition, land that it would be perverse not to tax it. Rich individuals purchase land as a means of evading taxes, and some landowners have managed to avoid paying taxes for centuries by owning their land through trusts. Tax it. The land cannot be taken abroad, and it's a tax that cannot be avoided, irrespective of 'who or what entity owns it'. You don't tax any property itself, you tax the value of the land it sits on. Closing this loophole would raise billions. flying scot Do you think the UK should introduce a wealth tax on the super-rich to help fund public services? Share your views in the comments. Socialism exists only for the rich I get that large salaries attract the best people for certain positions, but that's not the problem. The problem is that the top 1 per cent of rich people hold more wealth than the bottom 50 per cent. The gap between the very wealthy and the working class is massive and is only getting wider. It wasn't that long ago when one decent working-class wage could buy a house, a car, and still manage to bring up a couple of kids. Socialism only exists for the rich, while the working classes, people with disabilities, and now kids with disabilities are being targeted to raise more money. Plasticpaddy How do you value a private business? The vast majority of people in the UK with personal wealth over £10 million are entrepreneurs or business founders, and almost all of their wealth is in the form of shares in their business. These businesses will mostly be privately held, so there is no market-based price discovery mechanism available to value them. So, to make this work, the government would, on an annual basis, have to accurately estimate the value of every privately owned business in the UK. They would be backed up in court for decades with appeals, because the value of a business ultimately is 'what someone else is prepared to pay for it'. There is no universally agreed-upon formula. But long before this became a problem, every single high-net-worth business owner would have re-domiciled their business overseas and left the country for good, taking all the jobs with them, most likely. sj99 Millionaires remove money from the economy Money spent on winter fuel allowance, teacher wages, and special needs support stays in the economy because it cannot be saved. Wealth accruing to millionaire CEOs leaves the economy, usually via tax-efficient schemes in foreign jurisdictions. Millionaires and billionaires remove money from our economy because they don't live paycheque to paycheque. RodyaRaskolnikov High salaries create tax, not trickle down Lord Kinnock is certainly right about one thing: a wealth tax will be highly popular among voters. Taking money off those rich so-and-so's and giving some to me – what's not to like? What its proponents don't understand is that high salaries attract high taxes, and the Treasury is no doubt grateful. But they don't have any significant multiplier effect. Whereas companies set up by rich people (or who have become rich due to the value of those companies) employ workers who pay income tax and NI, generate pensions for retirees, produce goods and services which attract VAT, make profits which incur corporation tax and pay dividends on which dividend taxes are paid. So there is a large tax multiplier function. Impeding that process is not a good idea. OldContemptible Gentrification doesn't make you rich The problem is: how do you define wealth? I am working class and I live in a house in a once down-market neighbourhood that has been gentrified. It's worth considerably more than I paid for it 50 years ago. It's an asset that could attract a wealth tax. But I'm a pensioner on limited means, and there is no way I could afford 10 per cent or even 1 per cent of the value of my asset in a wealth tax every year. I could move, but stamp duty and other costs make that unappealing – assuming I could find a suitable property for an ageing couple. How's that fair? EnglishCastle Who are the real wealth creators? Well, the country has the choice of keeping a regressive tax system and declining public services, or doing something about it. I see no reason at all why capital gains tax should not be the same rate as income. Why does this country allow the curious ransom-like threat of the wealthy leaving to dominate fiscal policy? Who are the real wealth creators? Those who do the work, of course. Land value tax is another possibility. They can't take their land and house abroad. International cooperation would be a big help, of course, so that low-tax regimes cease to exist. Regardless, wealth distribution has become acutely unequal in recent decades. If nothing is done, the economy will decay, as we're already seeing. The rich will always gripe and offer special pleading. Those who are not rich yet back regressive taxation, are cutting their own throats. Poulter Top bosses won't flee for losing £1m A good part of the collapse in Labour's support is that they are intent on avoiding any meaningful tax increases for the rich, while penalising the disabled and others at the bottom of the wealth scale. It's no doubt a complex issue, but a couple of things strike me: 1. Are we to believe that if the income of a top boss drops, as a result of extra tax, from say £3m a year to £2m, it will become impossible to find someone competent to do the job at the lower rate (assuming the first scarpers off abroad)? 2. Does the argument that we have to pay top rates to get the best talent bear any scrutiny? E.g. the main skill demonstrated by water company bosses seems to lie in accruing as much wealth for themselves, with the lowest benefit to anyone else. Is that what we're paying top rates for? It's funny how the same argument somehow never gets used for people who actually do something useful, like care workers. Eadwine Wealth doesn't trickle down Unfortunately, this is based purely and simply on the belief that wealth trickles down, which is largely untrue. And the 'wealth' does not benefit the country – it is spent and invested elsewhere. A tax based simply on land ownership and usage, easy to verify by drone or satellite and with clear ownership recorded by the Land Registry, resolves that, and might also put an end to leaseholds... To suggest that millionaires and billionaires should contribute more, and that all working people be paid a minimum of the living wage, and those unable to work full time be topped up from taxation on those able to pay, should not be contentious. Topsham1 Popular, but counter-productive As Colbert said more than 300 years ago: "The art of taxation consists in so plucking the goose as to obtain the largest possible amount of feathers with the smallest amount of hissing." With a wealth tax, a government gets neither feathers nor hissing, as the rich simply leave the country for more welcoming shores. The idea is popular, but also utterly counter-productive. paul The rich pay the tax already So many lefties think that they are paying too much tax and that, instead, the government should soak the rich. The reality is that the vast majority of people in the UK are net recipients. The top 10 per cent of earners pay nearly 60 per cent of tax, and the tax rate in the UK is one of the lowest in Western Europe. If you want decent services, pay for them. YetAnotherName When does wealth creation become a problem? When someone starts and grows a business, they risk their savings and even their house. They work long hours and only make a profit and grow the business if they provide the goods and services that people want to buy. They also create jobs that would otherwise not exist and pay taxes that would otherwise not be paid. At what point does any of this wealth generation become a problem? Mark
Daily Mirror
2 hours ago
- Daily Mirror
Reform UK MP quits Nigel Farage's party after taking 'specialist legal advice'
He will continue to sit in the Commons as an independent after questions about his businesses from before he was an MP An MP who 'suspended himself' from Reform UK over questions related to Covid loans has left Nigel Farage's party. James McMurdock, the MP for South Basildon and East Thurrock "removed the party whip from himself" last week pending the outcome of an investigation relating to allegations around "business propriety during the pandemic". The Sunday Times published a story on Saturday which alleged two businesses connected to Mr McMurdock took out Covid-19 loans totalling £70,000 during the pandemic, one of which had no employees. Today, he said he "had a chance to take specialist legal advice from an expert in the relevant field" since the loans came to light. Writing on social media site X, he added: "In light of that advice, which is privileged and which I choose to keep private at this time, I have decided to continue my parliamentary career as an independent MP where I can focus 100% on the interests of my constituents." It leaves the party with just four sitting MPs, following the departure of Rupert Lowe earlier this year in a furious dispute with Mr Farage and the party's chairman Zia Yusuf. The Sunday Times reported allegations Mr McMurdock's firms, JAM Financial Ltd and Gym Live Health and Fitness Ltd, borrowed £70,000 in Covid Bounce Back loans in 2020, at the height of the pandemic. In 2020, it's claimed, JAM Financial - which had no employees until the pandemic - took a loan of £50,000 - the maximum available for medium-sized businesses. Mr McMurdoch transferred his shares in the firm to his mother and resigned as a director in 2021. Gym Live, which was dormant until January 2021, borrowed £20,000 over the same year. Both firms were in the process of being struck off the Companies House register - but on the same day in February 2023 the move was halted after the regulator received an objection from a third party, according to the Sunday Times. In his statement, Mr Anderson wrote: "I have today received a call from James McMurdock who has advised me, as Chief Whip, that he has removed the party whip from himself pending the outcome of an investigation into allegations that are likely to be published by a national newspaper." He added: "The allegations relate to business propriety during the pandemic and before he became an MP. At Reform UK we take these matters very seriously and James has agreed to cooperate in full with any investigation. "We will not be commenting further at this moment." Mr McMurdock has not publicly commented on the suspension or allegations, but is reported to have told the Times to "be very careful". He was elected MP for South Basildon & East Thurrock after getting 98 more votes than Tory Stephen Metcalfe in July's election. It later emerged he had been jailed for repeatedly kicking his former girlfriend in 2006. James McMurdock had previously claimed he was sent to a young offenders' institution for "pushing" the victim on a drunken night out. But court documents obtained by The Times reveal the reason given for his sentence was 'kicking to victim on around four times'. A sentencing report said the crime "requires immediate punishment", while a pre-sentence report suggested there was a "lack of willingness to comply". The victim's mum claimed the attack "left marks on her body" and said it took two security guards to pull Mr McMurdock off her. When his conviction came to light shortly after the general election Mr McMurdock disputed the details and said some might see it as a "teenage indiscretion". The assault happened at the end of a night out in 2006. Mr McMurdock was sentenced to 21 days after admitting the attack. His conviction came to light when the victims' mother contacted the Daily Mail voicing her anger that he had been allowed to stand.
