Labour is playing a dangerous game by lining up with Reform

Martin Shipton
No one predicted before the Senedd election that Labour would join forces with Reform UK to vote against a Plaid Cymru motion calling for fair funding for Wales.
Yet that’s what happened on Tuesday, with the result that the motion was lost by a single vote.
I’ve spoken to former Labour Members of the Senedd, as well as party members, who find the Labour group’s position on the issue incomprehensible.
Labour’s decision to vote with Reform also torpedoed a claim made by both Reform and the Conservatives for many months in advance of the election: that Labour and Plaid Cymru would prop each other up, if they were mathematically in a position to do so.
Such a view was essentially confirmed before the election by former First Minister Mark Drakeford, who said on the basis of polling evidence that the progressive parties would have a majority in the Senedd. This. he argued, was ultimately what mattered.
After the results were declared, there was a clear expectation, then, from both the progressive and reactionary wings of Welsh politics that the next four years at the Senedd would see the progressives consistently outvoting the reactionaries.
So what has gone wrong?
Part of the answer lies in the make-up of the diminished post-election Labour group. Before the election there was a swathe of Labour MSs who were very much from the “Welsh” wing of the party and comfortable with the “standing up for Wales” approach, even when that involved speaking out against the UK Labour government elected in 2024 when it snubbed or disrespected Wales. Political heavyweights like Mark Drakeford and Mick Antoniw had no inhibitions about criticising the Starmer government over its perceived betrayal of Welsh interests – and of a winning brand that had kept Labour in power since the outset of devolution.
But Drakeford and Antoniw have both retired, and the shrunken group elected in May 2026 seems disinclined to pick up the baton.
To be fair, they are at present understandably preoccupied with the Westminster transition from Starmer to Burnham, but that in itself perhaps indicates that Wales is not at the top of their agenda, where it should be.
Welsh Labour’s official policy is to support fair funding for Wales, but during Tuesday’s debate on the motion in the Senedd the rather left field argument advanced by Labour MS Huw Thomas was that the Welsh Government should persuade the Scottish Government to agree to a revision of the Barnett formula. This seems to have been based on an outdated understanding of what revising Barnett amounts to – as well as an attempt to create friction between Plaid Cymru and the SNP.
Weird
Intricacies aside, it’s pretty weird for a party that until recently claimed to be standing up for Wales to vote against fair funding for the country it’s meant to be representing. It makes one think that loyalty to British Labour is seen as more important than backing Wales – and that it’s safe to assume that a Burnham government will expect loyalty of this kind.
At the same time, Labour has been playing hard to get when it comes to supporting the Welsh Government’s Supplementary Budget. It’s been customary for these extra amounts of money that become available during a financial year to go through on the nod, leaving it to the Welsh Government’s discretion as to how the money is spent.
On this occasion additional millions have become available via Barnett for Wales because the UK Government decided to write off the accumulated Special Educational Needs and Disabilities deficits held by English local authorities.
The opposition parties are under no obligation to follow precedent and let Plaid Cymru’s minority have its say over how the extra money is spent. They will use whatever leverage they have to secure funds for sectors, policies and projects that they favour. It constitutes a form of political blackmail, of course, but parties will argue that it’s a benevolent form of blackmail that benefits those in need.
However, the presence of Reform in the Senedd certainly carries risks for progressive parties if they are suspected of conspiring with them. A couple of weeks ago there were gasps in the Chamber when Rhun ap Iorwerth admitted he had had a conversation with Reform’s Senedd group leader Dan Thomas.
Direct negotiations
Labour is currently trying to secure more money for local government from the Supplementary Budget, but so is Reform. Labour wants to be able to present any deal with Plaid as the result of direct negotiations with Plaid and with Reform out of the equation. But the optics won’t necessarily look good, and if Labour makes a habit of lining up with Reform, either when Budgets are being debated or when votes on other issues take place, the party is likely to alienate progressive voters in Wales even more than it has done already.
For many years Plaid Cymru was mocked by its opponents on the right as “Labour’s little helpers”. Labour clearly won’t want to fall victim to the same jibe. Both parties have expressed a preference not to form a coalition, and if they did so now, it would look like an admission of failure.
But it would be disastrous for Labour to align itself in any way with Reform, and its decision to join forces with the far right party and vote against a principle it officially espouses was a serious mistake.
Irony
During the debate on fair funding, Dan Thomas of Reform sent the irony counter through the roof when he accused Plaid Cymru of engaging in grievance politics. His party, of course, is entirely based on stirring up unfounded grievances.
In 1932 the German Socialist leader Kurt Schumacher denounced Nazism as “a continuous appeal to the inner swine in human beings”, unique in German history in its success at “ceaselessly mobilising human stupidity”. I look at my feed from X and remark inwardly that nothing has changed.
If Welsh Labour abandons its mission of standing up for Wales and gets into the habit of voting with Reform, neither Andy Burnham nor anyone else will be able to save it from oblivion.
Support our Nation today
For the price of a cup of coffee a month you can help us create an independent, not-for-profit, national news service for the people of Wales, by the people of Wales.


Well that was a waste of a vote.
Maybe it is time to consign Welsh Labour to the waste incinerator if they have chosen to side with the evil politics of racism, grievances and restricted number of policies that reform peddle that will never improve Welsh lives and livelihoods.
Wouldnt be unfair to describe the likes of Ken ‘iron ring’ Skates and Huw Thomas as being firmly on the Jo Stevens wing of the labour party in Wales – thats the Jo Stevens described by a former Welsh labour govt minister as the most anti-devolution Welsh Secretary since that obsequious royalist toady George Thomas held the position. Mind you even george thomas might have balked at siding with the proto fascists of Reform.
Welsh Labour did themselves no favours by voting against Plaid Cymru’s fair funding motion. But that motion had a serious weakness in that it failed to challenge Westminster’s fiscal rules that subordinate UK economic policy to the desires of financial markets and which constrain redistribution.
Without challenging those rules, the inevitable question is ‘who should get less so that Wales can get more?’, playing straight into Westminster’s divide and rule politcs.
We can be sure of one thing – Labour lining up with Reform in the Senedd to vote down a motion supporting fair funding for wales had absolutely zero to do with “Westminster’s fiscal rules that subordinate UK economic policy to the desires of financial markets” – the UK Labour party (under blair and brown’) helped draw up those rules. As for who’d ‘get less’ if Wales got more well how about the super rich? Its been estimated that a levy on individuals in britain with net wealth over £10 million a year would generate around £25 billion annually for… Read more »
Of course the ultra-rich should pay more. so why didn’t Plaid Cymru’s motion demand that?
Define super rich.
Anything over 35,000 per annum thanks….
HMRC: Net worth > 10,000,000GBP
FCA: Net worth -main home -pension -life insurance > 250,000GBP
As for industry there are basically three tiers starting at 1-5,000,000GBP as far as banks are concerned.
Debatable. It was a term in the comment I was replying too. It certainly includes billionaires, but those less rich than that should also pay more.
Plaid Cymru seems interested only in redistribution by geography, not by wealth or income.
Those fiscal rules are… actually quite sensible. The day to day budget should be funded entirely by tax receipts, with borrowing only permitted for investment. the current budget should be in balance or surplus by 2029/30 National debt (Public sector net financial liabilities) should be lower as a share of the economy in 2029/30 than in 2028/29 Some welfare spending must be subject to a cap. There is nothing here requiring any subordination to the financial markets nor that constrain redistribution of wealth. The markets however, are happy, but when we say markets here, we mean, those that are willing… Read more »
Rigid fiscal rules attempt to recreate the discipline of the gold standard in a world of fiat currencies. Because they constrain government finances from flexing in response to changing economic circumstances they will prove self-defeating in downturns and eventually have to be abandoned, as was the gold standard in the 1930s and as Germany has recently discarded its debt brake. But before reality forces a change of direction great damage can be done, as with worsening the interwar depression or ruining German infrastructure. Interest rates are a consideration but experience shows that modern central banks have more control over those… Read more »
For Labour see England, they have often shown their love for a crap flag and Empirailism
Maybe someone should remind the Welsh Labour MS’ about what is happening to Kier Starmer after he tried to court Reform voters…
Here’s the thing, as Martin Shipton masterfully reveals…….” Welsh Labour abandons its mission of standing up for Wales and gets into the habit of voting with Reform, neither Andy Burnham nor anyone else will be able to save it from oblivion”
It seems what’s left of Labours Welsh branch is determined to finish itself off?
They voted with the crypto fascists! Think about that? What would Anuerin Bevan, Keir Hardie & Rhodri Morgan think of that?
Kurt Schumacher was known for his sharp tongue”Wir sind kein Negervolk” (“We are not a colonial people”)…
Replacing the Barnett Formula is a no brainer …for progress …
Welsh Labour Members of the Senedd were reminded that their own Senedd election manifesto committed to securing fair funding for Wales…
During the fair funding debate on Tuesday, 7 July 2026, First Minister Rhun ap Iorwerth argued that reform is a matter of practical necessity rather than partisan rhetoric. Plaid Cymru rightly advocated for replacing the Barnett Formula…
To avoid unintended consequences it’s probably wise to keep Barnett as a catch-all and negotiate needs-based funding deals for specific funding streams starting with health. It could work like the triple lock so the highest of the different calculations wins.
It needs replacing as we already having unintended consequences …England-only infrastructure projects like High Speed 2 classified as “national” bypass the formula entirely, depriving Wales of billions in expected consequential funding…The mechanism only distributes a share of English public spending rather than providing tools to actively grow the Welsh tax base…There is a fierce political push for systemic overhaul, the UK Treasury resists comprehensive changes to the foundational framework> Why? Proposals to reform Welsh public funding focus on scrapping the population-based calculation in favour of a dynamic needs-based formula, alongside expanding local borrowing and tax-raising powers…
But it shouldn’t be a mechanism to reduce funding. That’s why there needs to be a Barnett floor that hopefully never gets activated because a needs based system always works. Never underestimate the Treasury’s ability to cook up reasons to claw back and underfund in some areas to cover more generous settlements elsewhere.
The Treasury will resist at every turn. I see your point. Agree it will do that. Whitehall looks down on Wales as we saw in Redwood handing back millions, he once said in my presence “what is the different between Wales and Wokingham” . But it is disappointing to see Labour look like and be worse than the Conservatives of the 80s…at least Walker, Heseltine, Gummer stood up for Wales…the current Sec of State for Wales Stevens “poodles” in line…and Wales is told to be grateful by the Mandelson loving former Treasury Minister from Bristol…
Fair funding is not just about geography.
Try telling that to those in poverty in different geographical parts of Wales …current system is geographically flawed because it ignores Wales’ distinct socioeconomic needs (such as higher relative deprivation and rurality) and fails to adequately account for infrastructure funding “short-changes” like HS2…
I’m not denying the importance of geographical inequality, which is an issue within Wales not just between Wales and England. Those living in the most deprived parts of Cardiff can expect 12 (men) or 18 (women) years fewer healthy years of life than those in the prosperous parts. What will the new Welsh Government do about that?
Geographical inequality is less pronounced than that by wealth and income. After allowing for housing costs, London has some of the highest poverty rates in the UK.
Skates is to Welsh Labour as Starmer is to UK Labour: bereft of ideas, bereft of purpose, and establishment status quo through and through. Don’t expect new thinking from him. Skates Labour are as anti-devolution as Reform and show no signs of learning from their drubbing in the recent polls.
Your point is proven by Skates following the lead Reform UK …Mr Shipton describes that it’s pretty weird for a party that until recently claimed to be standing up for Wales to vote against fair funding for the country it’s meant to be representing.
“It makes one think that loyalty to British Labour is seen as more important than backing Wales – and that it’s safe to assume that a Burnham government will expect loyalty of this kind.” That is the message Wrexham’s Skates is sending out …
Who votes against fair funding? I mean, honestly?
Awful.
Revising Barnett formula might very well mean less money for Wales. All the evidence suggests it will. How many times does that need to be said?
Depends who is negotiating, if its Welsh Labour with English Labour it might be true or Reform UK with Farage …we know where these English parties sit after this vote …not for Wales …
Instead of being Plaid’s little helpers, it seems “Welsh Labour” under Skates are determined to become Deform UK’s little helpers instead!
Far too much Senedd time is devoted to non binding resolutions. They’re invariably an unproductive affair in which the parties trade slogans. What you’re missing from your run down run down is that Plaid also lined up with Reform to defeat the Labour motion and they were all together to oppose the Conservative one. The key lesson from that being in Senedd business as with the world in general, the are more views in the world than simply Plaid/Reform. If you want to build consensus, fewer academic resolutions designed to provoke the opposite would seem like a good place to… Read more »
It is called a democracy and views are set out in political party’s manifestos, the people in Wales chose Plaid Cymru’s as the most progressive …we do know, however, that Labour do not stand by their Manifesto due to this vote as Starmer did not stand by his election Labour Manifesto in London… and we await Reform UK as it makes clear England is not its priority with Crypto Farage wanting to be leader …
No one has an issue with the views, that’s democracy sure, but… shouldn’t they actually be productive? More actually binding resolutions rather than virtue signalling would be nice.
At least we are seeing that Labour’s Manifesto was untrue. The First Minister needs to make the case for Wales. He finds that many members of the Senedd including the shrunk Labour Party do not want to see Wales to prosper this is politicking based on London centric thinking. The Government smoked out Skates.
I wish I could vote for this 100 times. we could do with you in the Senedd!
In the first 100 days, I’m yet to see some tangible action. Apart from another traws cymru bus route
A lot of people complain they don’t know what parties or leaders stand for so surely debates like this are an important part of answering those concerns. Getting members to make statements on the record about topical matters that can be used by anyone to hold them or their party to account is surely invaluable. For example Welsh Labour have just put on the record that they oppose fair funding. That can’t be undone.
That’s the problem, it’s non-binding, so can’t hold them to account.
This response is anti democracy. It implies the only power is the law and a resolution without legal power is powerless and pointless. Which completely ignores the ultimate power in a democracy – the people. These debates are recorded in video and transcript form. Members can share snippets on social media, either to impress with their own contributions or to highlight weakness in their opposition. Journalists can use these contributions in interviews, even perhaps years later, to ask difficult questions about political positions that may have changed. This is how public support is built and lost which is reflected in… Read more »
*engage with their representatives
Untrue.
“Welsh” labour are done for as a political force in Wales. I now can’t justify voting for them at all since they are happy to vote with fascists.
Labour being traitors to Cymru?
Well there’s a surprise…..