logo
What next for Julie Morgan, a woman who shaped Welsh politics for 40 years

What next for Julie Morgan, a woman who shaped Welsh politics for 40 years

Wales Online22-04-2025

What next for Julie Morgan, a woman who shaped Welsh politics for 40 years
The Cardiff North MS, one half of a famous political couple, is preparing for a new chapter after a lifetime of frontline politics
Julie Morgan has a year remaining in elected politics
(Image: John Myers )
It is 40 years since Julie Morgan first became an elected politician. Since taking her seat on South Glamorgan county council in 1985, she has also been a city councillor, an MP and a Senedd member. But, she is one of the 13 Labour Senedd members who has said she will not stand again for re-election, and her long career in politics will end when the Senedd is disbanded ahead of the election next spring.
Born in 1944, she was raised by a single mother after her father died when she was very young. Her mother was someone who wasn't party political she says, but someone who "believed very strongly in people's rights". Her mother worked with children who had learning disabilities in Ely Hospital, and she was the first person to take the children out of the hospital for trips on the bus or to the swimming pool. That nurturing profession is something her daughter followed her into when she entered working life, working as a social worker in Barry and then as assistant director of Barnardo's before entering politics.

Julie Edwards, as she was, joined the Labour party at 17, her first campaigning role was to get Jim Callaghan elected to the-then Cardiff South East seat. He, so the story goes, told her she should return to university, but joined by names such as Neil Kinnock, Glenys Parry (later Kinnock), and one Rhodri Morgan, she stayed. She had roles within the party but was first elected as an MP in 1997, she was returned in 2001. At the 2005 election, her seat became the most marginal in Wales as her Conservative challenger reduced her majority to 1,146, a seat she then lost five years later. Before that she had never considered going to the Senedd, but then she did and she has served the same constituency since 2011. For our free daily briefing on the biggest issues facing the nation, sign up to the Wales Matters newsletter here
Her step from social work to politics was, she said, a "natural one". "Social work is a huge privilege because people will tell you things they wouldn't in your normal life. People would confide in you and tell you things, it was a job I loved and you were able to make you were able to make a difference. but on an individual level with individual families and I began to think I needed to do something a bit more collective or something with wider implications," she said.
She joined South Glamorgan County Council first, with Mark Drakeford, Jane Hutt, Mick Antoniw - all people she now sits in the Senedd with. There, she and Jane Hutt started the council's women's committee, the first in Wales and a cause she has fought for throughout her career. They faced opposition in their ambition of promoting the rights of women, she recalls. "We had some strong male supporters but we were a very small group of women," she said.
Article continues below
Julie Morgan meeting HIllary Clinton
(Image: Julie Morgan )
In and outside the chamber was "male-dominated" and some of those men found it "unnerving", she says, that the committee was even set up. Their approach wasn't shouting or wagging fingers, but to be patient and to chip away at issues.
"I think that's what I've learnt from politics more than anything else, it takes a long time to change things and the things I'm really glad to have seen happen have taken a long, long time and you just have to stick with them. And you usually get it in the end, I've found," she laughs.

She made the step to Westminster in the peak of New Labour's stratospheric rise to power. It was not a given she would go for a Westminster seat but she did feel an obligation. "We had very few women MPs then, an awful situation, and I thought 'well, I'm one of this very few number of women councillors so if I don't go for it, who will'? I felt sort of a bit of an obligation to go for it," she said.
There was a little hesitation. "Like most women, I don't like pushing myself, I still don't, and I wasn't keen on that bit at all," she said. "You think, 'Oh, people must think I think I'm great' because I'm standing for this position, and really, nothing could be further than the truth. I think it was that feeling of hesitancy and nervousness but I made myself do it," she said.
Now, you can commute to London relatively easily, work en route, but the practicalities were harder then. Her children were teenagers, and an added complication was that for two years of her tenure, her husband Rhodri was an MP too. "It was obviously a difficult thing with two parents away," she said, but their age helped, as did her mother living with them.

There is something of a fascination when people who are married are in the same professional field, particularly at Westminster. There was, she remembers, a lot of interest when she arrived. "There's absolutely no doubt that when I arrived, they defined me by Rhodri," she said. When asked if that has continued throughout her life she says yes, some people "always look at me and think of Rhodri". "But it never bothered me really because minus two years, we were never actually in the same institution and at that period, he wanted to be First Minister and we were going through all the referendum, and him being blocked by Tony Blair, so there wasn't much crossover," she said.
Asked if she felt she had to mop up the mess created by the row between Welsh Labour and the UK party, she said no. "I thought it was absolutely the right thing to do and so I didn't worry about it. Rhodri was very well known and well liked in Westminster, there was a lot of goodwill towards him, apart from the leadership and people around them," she said.
In fact, the first year of their crossover in Westminster felt - as many new parents could relate to - like a holiday, being away from the pressure, the day-to-day demands of family life. Being married to someone in politics had its perks. "We had great discussions at home because it was really nice to check out with somebody who knew everything that was going on...It was important sharing all those things," she said.

As soon as she arrived work began on the Government of Wales Bill, and things like the minimum wage legislation. "Something like that is why I didn't carry on with social work. I could see that by going to somewhere like Westminster and promoting something like the minimum wage, what a difference that would make."
In her tenure, she had three Private Member's Bill, something almost unheard of. One became law, a ban on sunbeds for under-18s, which came about after Kirsty McRae, from Barry, was admitted to hospital after using an unmanned salon in Barry. The 14-year-old suffered 70% first-degree burns after spending 19 minutes on an unmanned sunbed.
It went through on the last day of the last Labour government, and Julie was sat there in the House of Lords to see it go through. While the actual process was over in a flash, and slightly anti-climatic, it is something she remains proud of to this day because it showed politics in action.

The two others were the voting age to be lowered to 16 - now in place in Wales for Senedd and council elections, and a ban on smoking in public places.
She too has campaigned hard for a ban on smacking children - also a law in Wales - and is an ardent supporter of assisted dying, something she recently led a debate on in the Senedd, although it was ultimately defeated.
The campaign to stop physical punishment of children is something she did not get through in Westminster and her own government at the time did not bac it.

That is not the only issue she has disagreed with her party on. She voted against the Iraq War, and against tuition fees. "It was one of the most difficult things to do because you're elected for the party, and expected to have collective responsibility for your manifesto. But the things that I voted against weren't in a manifesto. They never said in the manifesto we would go to war in Iraq, or we'd raise tuition fees, in fact we probably said we weren't going to raise tuition fees," she chuckles.
Julie Morgan has been a long time campaigner in the battle for justice for the victims of infected blood
There were, she admits, "huge efforts" behind the scenes to ask her to change her mind. The party whips tried their "utmost to try to influence you". Was it ever unpleasant, I ask. "Well," she says, diplomatically. "It's different with different people, I think. You've heard of stand up rows but I was never really involved in that, but lots of meetings and every effort made to get you to change your mind and to vote with the government."

She recalls getting a phone call while on a family holiday in west Wales and a whip getting through to tell her if she voted against the government they would write to her constituency party about her behaviour.
"Ultimately, I do believe there are some things that you have to obey what you think is the right thing to do. Obviously you compromise all the time in politics but there are some things that you can't compromise on and I think you do play a role in the party by sticking to those things. But it was very unpleasant," she said.
She lost her seat in Westminster in 2010 by 194 votes, and while she had campaigned for and supported the Senedd, it wasn't her plan to come to Cardiff. She didn't plan to go to the Senedd, that was Rhodri's ambition, as was being First Minister.

But Cardiff North was a bellwether seat, one which shows the national picture. That was the election where Gordon Brown had his outburst at Gillian Duffy, calling her a "bigoted woman" and despite a changing national picture, her result was close.
She went into the count not knowing the result, or how close it would be, but knowing Labour was expected to lose. It was one of the last seats to be declared, so there was extra attention on it. It was, she says, a "bit of a low spot".
The next day they had already planned to go to Marseilles to see rugby because Rhodri was "desperate" to go, the distance helping. But losing is always personal. "It is personal, they voted against you. I had a lot of sympathy from people, and messages of support, which is great. But then I think we had 2 or 3 months to wind up the office and the issue came up about whether I'd stand for the Senedd," she said.

She was actually away in west Wales when a journalist called her and asked if she would stand. "I really hadn't thought about it, but I said 'well, of course I am' and that was it."
The election was 12 months after her Westminster loss, and much more comprehensive victory. She took back up the mantle about the physical abuse of children, something she got through the Senedd at the time she held a cabinet role. Despite continued loud opposition, she said "we were on the side of history". "Most people had stopped using physical punishment on their children, but it absolutely needed to be made illegal so there was a clear message to everybody."
Rhodri and Julie Morgan pictured together at an election count
(Image: Daily Post Wales )

It was a "fantastic" conclusion to almost 25 years of campaigning on the issue. As we head towards the end of our hour-long interview in her constituency office, there are so many areas of her professional life we haven't discussed, like the constituency she said it had been the "honour of a lifetime" to represent in the statement announcing she wouldn't seek re-election, nor the loss of the deputy leader battle for Labour I recall being something deeply felt by her and her team.
An hour could not cover all that, it would take a book - but, a diary of memoirs is not something she has in the pipeline when she leaves the Senedd before May's election, something she confesses she does not want to do.
"I don't want to go. I have no desire to go, but it seems the right thing to do because it seems to commit to another four years...would you be able to, you know, give your all to the constituency during that time? And then the other issue is, of course, it's a new Senedd and different Senedd and lots of people wanted to stand and we've lots of people who want to stand in Cardiff north, so I think it's time for someone else to have a chance," she said.

I put to her the words of a Facebook post by Eluned Morgan - words she had not heard - about her standing down. "Alongside Rhodri, Julie helped shape modern Wales, but she's always been a force in her own right. Her work on the smoking ban, children's rights, and social care hasn't just changed laws - it's changed lives. In the Senedd, she's been a voice of wisdom and experience, but also of progress and reform. Julie has never stopped pushing for positive change, never stopped believing that Wales can do better.
"What many might not know is how Julie has quietly mentored and supported countless others in Welsh public life, especially women. She's blazed a trail not just by being there first, but by reaching back and helping others follow. Her warmth, her integrity, and her genuine desire to help others have made her not just respected, but deeply loved within the Welsh Labour family. She's not just part of our movement's history; she's helped write its future. For that, and for so much more, we owe her our deepest gratitude," the First Minister said.
"That's very nice," she says, saying she is continuing to work to get diversity in the selections Labour is making. "There are people there who are going to be very great in the future," she said.

Asked her advice to those people she is mentoring who face a very different type of campaign, thanks to the brutality of social media for one, than she did when she started, she says: "You've just got to think what you can achieve. Politics is such a fantastic job to have, you make such great friends to begin with and great alliances and in Cardiff north I've made lifelong friends and I think that outweighs the nastiness and the viciousness that is there. "
A photograph of Julie and Rhodri Morgan together
(Image: Western Mail )
For someone who has done so much in her own right, it feels almost wrong to talk so much about her husband, but she is used to it. Not a day goes by, she says, eight years on, that someone doesn't speak to her about Rhodri. "Hardly a day passes when someone doesn't bring up something about Rhodri. It happens all the time."

That is an incredible legacy, I say. She smiles back. In the days after his sudden death, speaking to her, it was clear then that the very public expectation of mourning him wasn't the approach she would have opted for. She wanted to be with her family, continuing their traditions of having the growing family round every Sunday, serving up freshly cooked ingredients from their weekly trip to Riverside Market. That is one thing that hasn't changed, still a barbecue in the summer, a roast in the winter.
"It was so very public, all of that, but in a way I suppose the point of doing rituals is to help you get through it, isn't it? And that was quite difficult to do," she said. "Because it was all so public and everyone was talking about him, in a way it was as if he hadn't gone.
"So the difficulty is then living without him, and I always think 'I wish I could tell Rhodri this or that' but I think the intensity of grief does pass and you learn to live with it but there's always that you feel something is missing, all the time, that something's not quite right.
Article continues below
"While we did take two separate political paths, we shared the same beliefs and we would always have such great chats in the night, we were such sounding boards and I would think 'I want to know what he thought' although I would probably do what I was going to do in any case," she says.
Asking what she will do with her freedom, she immediately shook her head, shutting down the question. "I can't think about it, I'm determined to go flat out until the end. I'm certainly not going to slack for a moment until the day goes well. I always remember the night before Rhodri stood down as First Minister he was still going through the equivalent of the red box, doing it exactly as if he had just started. And that was a good example, I thought. So I've kept that in my mind, to keep going right until the end," she said.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

MP urges Government to protect live music venues from new neighbours' complaints
MP urges Government to protect live music venues from new neighbours' complaints

South Wales Guardian

timean hour ago

  • South Wales Guardian

MP urges Government to protect live music venues from new neighbours' complaints

Dame Caroline Dinenage has proposed letting decision-makers take into account existing properties, when they grant or refuse permission for new projects. The Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee chairwoman warned that 'live music's in crisis, the Government needs to be listening' as she proposed a new clause to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. Dame Caroline, the Conservative MP for Gosport, told the Commons: 'It isn't about venues versus developers. 'It's about making sure we have a balance right between building enough good homes and making sure the places we're building keep the things that make life worth living. 'In Westminster and our constituencies, everyone agrees that our high streets have been in decline, so it's vitally important that we protect the places that are special to us, our constituents and our communities, the places that provide a platform for our creators and our world-beating creative industries where we can make memories, celebrate and have fun.' Dame Caroline called on the Government to let town halls and ministers rule on plans 'subject to such conditions that would promote the integration of the proposed development of land with any existing use of land, including such conditions as may be necessary to mitigate the impact of noise on the proposed development'. A similar principle already exists in national planning rules, known as the National Planning Policy Framework, to ease pressure on existing businesses which 'should not have unreasonable restrictions placed on them as a result' of newer builds. But the Music Venue Trust's annual report last year warned that, in 2023, 22.4% of venues closed as a result of 'operational issues', compared with 42.1% of its members reporting 'financial issues'. The Trust identified noise abatement orders or other neighbour disputes as being among the issues which have resulted in permanent closures. 'Consistent application of the 'agent of change' principles will de-risk and speed up planning and development,' Dame Caroline told MPs, and added that her proposal was 'good for venues' and 'good for developers and new neighbours'. She said the law change could help authorities stop 'expensive and often pointless bun fights' when neighbours complain about noise. She continued: 'It'll make sure the needs of an existing cultural venue are considered from the start and it will save developers from late-stage objections and lengthy expensive legal disputes down the line.' Dame Caroline said music venues 'are the foundation of our world-beating creative industries and also very important for our local communities', and that they had been placed 'under threat, including from our disruptive planning system and our onerous licensing regime'. The Commons select committee recommended last year that the 'agent of change' principle should be put on a statutory footing, to protect grassroots music venues.

Smacking ban would be ‘heavy-handed', warns Tory critic at Westminster
Smacking ban would be ‘heavy-handed', warns Tory critic at Westminster

Wales Online

timean hour ago

  • Wales Online

Smacking ban would be ‘heavy-handed', warns Tory critic at Westminster

Smacking ban would be 'heavy-handed', warns Tory critic at Westminster Speaking in Parliament, former MP Lord Jackson of Peterborough argued "reasonable chastisement" was harmless Introducing a smacking ban in England would be "disproportionate and heavy-handed", a Conservative peer has warned. Speaking in Parliament, former MP Lord Jackson of Peterborough argued "reasonable chastisement" was harmless and calls to abolish it as a defence for punishing a child risked "criminalising good and caring parents, as well as overloading children's services departments". ‌ He made his comments as the House of Lords continued its detailed line-by-line scrutiny of the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill. ‌ One of the changes proposed to the legislation was a move to outlaw the smacking of a child by scrapping the common law defence of reasonable punishment. Former president of the British Medical Association (BMA) and independent crossbencher Baroness Finlay of Llandaff said children had been left vulnerable by the legal "loophole" and urged for it to be closed, as it had been already in Scotland and Wales. She told peers: "There is clear evidence that physical punishment has no positive outcomes for children." Article continues below She added: "Hitting children hurts on the outside and on the inside. It damages emotional development. "Eight in 10 child runaways cite family violence as a cause." Highlighting support for the proposal by a number of leading organisations, including the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, the NSPCC, Barnardo's and the Children's Commissioner for England, Lady Finlay said: "It is time to protect children from assault and battery." ‌ But opposing the amendment, Lord Jackson said: "I believe it is an egregious interference in family life by the state and an intrusion. "It is an attack on family rights and it will encourage a childish disrespect for authority. "It is disproportionate and heavy-handed and it risks criminalising good and caring parents, as well as overloading children's services departments." ‌ He added: "The law as it stands is sensible. It outlaws violence, abuse and unreasonable chastisement. "Crown Prosecution Service guidelines are clear that, if the actions of a parent cause anything that is more than transient or trifling, it is unlawful. "The reasonable-chastisement defence simply permits parents to use very mild physical discipline, like a tap on the hand or a smack on the bottom, without being charged with assault... 'Reasonable chastisement' is common and harmless." ‌ Lord Jackson went on: "Everyone wants the state to intervene to protect children who are in danger of abuse, but, if that is to be done effectively, the limited resources available need to be focused on identifying and helping those at risk, not investigating innocent, loving parents because the law of assault has become politicised by activists who do not agree with reasonable chastisement. "Making trivial smacks a criminal offence will cause misery for parents and children." But the peer faced criticism for his remarks from Liberal Democrat Baroness Walmsley, who said: "He used 'smacking' quite a lot. I will never use that word myself, because it trivialises what we mean. ‌ "We are talking about a hit – about a physical assault on a child. "The reasonable chastisement defence is only ever likely to be used in a court of law, and it has been." She cited the murder of 10-year-old Sara Sharif in 2023, whose father Urfan Sharif claimed in a call to police after fleeing England that he "did legally punish" his daughter but he "beat her up too much". ‌ Pressing for the removal of the "reasonable chastisement" defence, Lady Walmsley said: "The presence of those words in the law sends a message that it can be lawful to beat a little child." Former Playschool presenter and Barnardo's vice-president Baroness Benjamin, who sits as a Liberal Democrat peer, said: "Almost 70 countries have banned smacking, leaving no ambiguity in the law. "It is never OK to 'reasonably punish' a child. It is time to join those countries and end physical punishment against children." ‌ Responding, education minister Baroness Smith of Malvern pointed out the most serious cases of child abuse would not be covered by the reasonable punishment defence. She said: "We are looking closely at changes in Scotland and Wales and continue to build our evidence base, but we do not want to take this important decision yet." The minister added: "Most parents want what is best for their children and they should be supported. Article continues below "It is right that we protect all children who are at risk of harm, but it is also right that we do not intervene in family life when children are safe, loved and well supported."

Why Scotland's public sector needs its own version of DOGE and we should all support it
Why Scotland's public sector needs its own version of DOGE and we should all support it

Scotsman

time2 hours ago

  • Scotsman

Why Scotland's public sector needs its own version of DOGE and we should all support it

Getty Images Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... For those of us who have taken the trouble to engage with Reform UK's personnel and their activities – so we might understand their concerns, ambitions and the motives behind them – the performance of Britain's disruptor party at last Thursday's Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse by-election did not come as a surprise. Labour's victory was a shock because the SNP – and John Swinney in particular – had itself promoted the narrative of a Labour collapse as part of its campaigning tactics. To make this outcome appear especially credible the Labour Party itself had clearly switched into damage limitation mode by protecting its candidate from himself. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad In the end the vote delivered a tight three-way contest with only 1471 votes between the Labour, SNP and Reform candidates. With the Conservative candidate coming fourth with 1621 votes, never again should Rusell Findlay suggest voting Reform will result in an SNP victory. That sort of unjustified entitlement will be the death of Conservative or other pro-UK parties when Reform is clearly a serious contender. Let voters decide for themselves on the true merits of a candidate rather than be shepherded to vote against competitors. The prospect now lies ahead that the SNP may not form an administration after next year's Holyrood election and the possibility of genuine change might be possible. Accepting we have a proportional voting system at Holyrood I am not in favour of parties trying to build coalitions before they have been elected because it reduces choice for voters. Let the electorate decide which parties it wishes to reward for good reasons after which the elected representatives can take it from there. I am, however, in favour of parties giving serious consideration to policies that accentuate the common ground they might have with each other so that when attempting to build an administration, be it a full-blooded coalition or a confidence and supply arrangement, it is achieved in a positive and practical manner that makes good government possible. One of the issues that Scotland has to face up to is that it has its spending priorities all wrong. There are very serious faults with the quality and supply of many of our public services and the lack of funds finding their way to where they can make the most difference cannot be solved by taxing or borrowing more. Both of these possibilities are already stretched to the limit – so it requires changing the priorities. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Ideas about how this might be done are again up for debate thanks to the election of President Javier Milei of Argentina and President Trump gaining a second term after the Biden hiatus. Both have taken a radical approach of asking hard questions about the justification of spending and making sweeping changes that involve not just trimming budgets but closing down some operations that are now considered to be unnecessary or provide duplication. This has been characterised by Trump's creation of a Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE for short. Now in England, where Reform UK has gained control of five County Councils, local doge projects are being established. In Derbyshire decisions are being taken in quick order to start by example by closing down committees and removing generous sinecures that provide allowances and expenses to councillors. The amounts are initially relatively small but they signal an intent to the public that councillors feathering their nests by establishing talking shops and generating paperchases must end. This can only make the acceptance of rationalising departments and making superfluous posts redundant easier to deliver. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad But a word of warning. Making changes at the margins is not going to be enough. Simply cutting back on the number of administrators is not the solution to bad resource allocation. What is required is to accept some functions are not the business of the state, be they delivered by unaccountable quangos and agencies, local councils or legislative governments. Abandoning functions that are not seen as vital necessities will be required. Scotland undoubtedly needs its own form of DOGE to go through the lush spending of the Scottish Parliament – all while the homeless are without shelter, drug-dependents are without rehab, classrooms are without teachers, pregnant women are without maternity wards and convicted criminals are released because we are without enough prisons. The place to begin is to take more seriously the insightful reports of the Auditor General who reveals with disturbing regularity the poor decisions that have been taken which cost us millions. When we add millions together we get closer to saving billions – all of which can be used to reduce Scotland's taxes to at least the same level as England's so we can encourage the enterprise that will create genuine sustainable prosperity. By stripping the SNP's unnecessary spending vital services can be protected and improved. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad It also needs a huge change in attitude – and it must start at the top. We need a Scottish Government to always think about the public pound when committing to defend its policies through the courts. The fact that defending the Scottish Government case in the Supreme Court regarding what constitutes a woman should have run up a bill of £170,000 should be universally condemned. The legal costs that started with Nicola Sturgeon and passed through the hands of Humza Yousaf and John Swinney should be paid by them. It was, after all, an action designed to save their political reputations and against at least half of Scotland's people. Likewise, any spending on the whole panoply of independence and grievance mongering or political hobbyhorses should be open to challenge. The turnaround of the Argentinian economy has led the once-defaulting basket-case economy to higher GDP growth, falling inflation and improving and a declining poverty rate. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Scotland has a great deal to do to correct 18 years of SNP misrule all the more reason that being more realistic about what can be afforded must be as starting point.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store