Wales can't risk handing power to Nigel Farage
With less than a fortnight before Welsh voters cast their ballots, six party leaders met under studio lights to wrestle with a question as old as democratic politics itself: can promises be trusted when no one will say what they cost? The debate, held ahead of the May 7th Senedd election, laid bare the tension between political aspiration and fiscal reality, as the Institute for Fiscal Studies quietly reminded all parties that the next Welsh government will inherit a financial landscape demanding hard choices. What emerged was less a contest of ideas than a map of alliances and exclusions — a preview of the negotiations that will almost certainly follow an election no single party is expected to win outright.
- Reform UK forced an uncomfortable reckoning by demanding all parties publish full policy costings, exposing that none had done so while independent analysts warned of a looming financial squeeze requiring tax rises or service cuts.
- The transparency challenge fractured the panel — Labour and the Conservatives signalled willingness to publish, Plaid claimed partial disclosure, the Greens acknowledged selective costing, and the Liberal Democrats flatly refused, calling their manifesto a document of aspiration rather than arithmetic.
- Immigration policy ignited the sharpest exchanges, with Reform and the Conservatives opposing the Welsh government's Nation of Sanctuary programme while others accused them of scapegoating migrants to distract from deeper failures in public services.
- Four leaders — from Labour, Plaid Cymru, the Liberal Democrats, and the Greens — declared they would refuse any coalition with Reform, yet all left the door open to one another, sketching the outlines of a complex post-election negotiation.
- With no majority winner expected in the 96-seat Senedd, the debate ended less as a clash of visions than as an opening move in a political chess match whose endgame will be decided in the days after May 7th.
Less than two weeks before Welsh voters go to the polls, six party leaders gathered for a televised debate that turned contentious almost immediately over a deceptively simple question: how much will your promises actually cost?
Reform UK's Dan Thomas opened by challenging every leader on stage to publish full financial details of their manifesto pledges — a moment that drew applause and exposed a transparency gap that independent analysts had been flagging for weeks. The Institute for Fiscal Studies had already warned that whoever forms the next Welsh government will face a severe financial squeeze, with many promises likely requiring either tax rises or cuts to public services to deliver.
The responses revealed sharp divisions. Labour's Eluned Morgan and Conservative leader Darren Millar both said they were willing to publish costings, though Millar added he'd do so only if everyone else went first. Plaid Cymru's Rhun ap Iorwerth said his party had already released many figures. The Greens' Anthony Slaughter acknowledged partial costing of specific commitments. But Liberal Democrat leader Jane Dodds flatly refused, saying her manifesto was about ambition and aspiration — and that since she didn't expect to be first minister, detailed spending plans seemed beside the point.
The debate grew sharper over immigration and the Welsh government's Nation of Sanctuary policy. Reform and the Conservatives opposed it; Slaughter accused them of blaming immigrants for the decay of public services; Thomas said his party was simply listening to Welsh voters; Morgan argued the numbers of asylum seekers in Wales were tiny and that her opponents were manufacturing division.
The most consequential moment came when coalition possibilities were raised. No party is expected to win an outright majority in the 96-seat Senedd, making post-election cooperation inevitable. Four leaders — from Plaid, Labour, the Liberal Democrats, and the Greens — declared they would not work with Reform under any circumstances, while leaving the door open to one another. Thomas said Reform would work with any party willing to help deliver their manifesto, and accused Labour and Plaid of rigging the new voting system. Millar notably refused to rule out working with anyone.
In closing statements, leaders made their final appeals — ap Iorwerth calling for Plaid to act as a bulwark against Reform, Morgan defending Labour's credibility, Dodds urging voters to reject divisive politics, Slaughter arguing every Green elected meant one fewer Reform seat, and Thomas promising common sense unity. The election takes place on Thursday, May 7th.
Less than two weeks before Welsh voters head to the polls, six party leaders gathered for a televised debate that quickly turned contentious over a question that should have been simple: How much will your promises actually cost?
Reform UK's Dan Thomas opened the confrontation by challenging every other leader on the stage to publish the full financial details of their manifesto pledges. The studio audience applauded. It was a pointed moment—one that exposed a broader transparency problem that independent analysts have been flagging for weeks. None of the major parties had released comprehensive costings for their policies, and the Institute for Fiscal Studies had already warned that whoever forms the next Welsh government will face a severe financial squeeze, with day-to-day funding growth slowing significantly. Many of the promises being made, the IFS suggested, would likely require either tax increases or cuts to public services to actually deliver.
The responses from the panel revealed sharp divisions on how seriously each party took the question. Labour's Eluned Morgan and the Welsh Conservatives' Darren Millar both said they were willing to publish their costings—though Millar added a conditional caveat: he'd be happy to do so if everyone else went first. Plaid Cymru's Rhun ap Iorwerth claimed his party had already released many of the figures, describing it as essential for voters to understand how the party had constructed its governing program. The Greens' Anthony Slaughter acknowledged that his party had costed some proposals, pointing to specific commitments like a rent freeze leading to rent controls and free bus travel for under-22s. But Jane Dodds of the Liberal Democrats flatly refused. Her manifesto, she said, was about ambition and aspiration, not detailed spending plans. She wasn't expecting to be first minister after May 8th, she added, so publishing full costings seemed beside the point.
The debate grew sharper when the conversation turned to immigration and the Welsh government's "Nation of Sanctuary" policy, which has provided support to asylum seekers and refugees—though official figures show the vast majority of the spending goes toward supporting Ukrainians fleeing Russia's war. Both Reform and the Conservatives opposed the policy. Slaughter accused them of playing a dangerous game by blaming immigrants for the decay of public services. Thomas rejected the characterization, saying his party was simply listening to the majority of Welsh people. Morgan countered that the numbers of asylum seekers in Wales were incredibly low and that Reform and the Conservatives were manufacturing a myth to stoke division.
But the most significant moment came when the conversation shifted to post-election coalition possibilities. No party is expected to win an outright majority in the May 7th election for the 96-seat Senedd, so some form of cooperation will be necessary to form a government. Four of the six leaders—from Plaid Cymru, Labour, the Liberal Democrats, and the Greens—declared they would not work with Reform under any circumstances. Ap Iorwerth said Reform stood in "diametric opposition" to his values. Morgan said Labour didn't have enough in common with them. Dodds framed it as a defensive measure, saying the Lib Dems would be a "responsible partner to stop Reform UK trashing our services." Slaughter was equally firm, ruling out both Reform and the Conservatives. Yet all four left the door open to working with each other, a signal that various coalition combinations might be possible.
Thomas, for his part, said Reform would work with any party willing to help deliver their manifesto. He accused Labour and Plaid of rigging the new voting system to ensure they'd end up in power regardless. Millar, the Conservative leader, notably refused to rule out working with anyone, saying he'd partner with any party that could help deliver Conservative policies like cutting income tax.
In their closing statements, the leaders made their final pitches. Ap Iorwerth warned that Wales couldn't risk handing power to Nigel Farage and called for Plaid to be the largest party as a bulwark against Reform. Millar argued that Plaid had kept Labour in power for decades and that the Conservatives offered real change. Dodds said Wales was better than the divisive politics Reform wanted to import from America and pointed to constituencies where the Lib Dems were best positioned to stop them. Slaughter said Wales was crying out for change and that under the new voting system, every Green elected would mean one fewer Reform member. Thomas promised to unite Wales around common sense policies. Morgan closed by saying Welsh Labour had a credible plan while other parties were asking voters to take a risk. The election is set for Thursday, May 7th.
Citas Notables
I challenge every leader on this panel to publish your costings. Ours are ready to go so we can have a full transparent election.— Dan Thomas, Reform UK leader
Our manifesto is about ambition and aspiration. We want to influence government, I'm not going to be first minister on the eighth of May.— Jane Dodds, Welsh Liberal Democrat leader, on why she won't publish costings
La Conversación del Hearth Otra perspectiva de la historia
Why does it matter whether parties publish their costings before an election?
Because the Institute for Fiscal Studies is saying the next government will face a severe financial squeeze. Many of these promises—free bus travel, rent controls, expanded services—will require either tax rises or cuts elsewhere. Voters deserve to know which it'll be.
But Jane Dodds refused to publish hers. How does that argument hold up?
It doesn't, really. She said her manifesto is about ambition, not details. But if you're asking people to vote for you, they should know what you're actually proposing to pay for and how. The studio audience applauded when Reform made the challenge—that tells you something about what voters think.
What's the real story underneath the costing debate?
It's about trust and accountability. Reform is using transparency as a wedge issue to make the other parties look evasive. Whether that's fair or not, it's working. And it matters more because no party will have a majority—whoever forms government will need partners, and those partners will want to know what they're actually signing up for.
Four parties ruled out working with Reform. Does that mean the election outcome is already decided?
Not quite. It means Reform is isolated, which limits their path to power. But Labour, Plaid, the Lib Dems, and the Greens all left the door open to each other. So you could see various combinations—Labour with Plaid, Labour with the Lib Dems, even a three-way deal. The real negotiation happens after May 7th.
Why did the immigration debate get so heated?
Because it's not really about the numbers. The Conservatives and Reform are opposing the Nation of Sanctuary policy, but asylum seekers make up a tiny part of the budget. What they're really doing is using immigration as a symbol of government priorities. Morgan and Slaughter called them out on it—said they were manufacturing a crisis that doesn't exist. It's a proxy fight about values.
What should voters take from this debate?
That the parties have very different ideas about what Wales needs, and they're not being equally transparent about how they'd pay for it. Reform is pushing the transparency issue hard, which puts pressure on the others. And whoever wins will need to negotiate with parties that have explicitly ruled them out—that's going to make governing complicated.