Plaid Cymru unveils economic plan to revive Welsh economy
The plan, titled "Making Wales Work: Plaid Cymru's New Economic Plan," was launched on Monday, April 28, at Coaltown Coffee in Ammanford.
Luke Fletcher, Plaid Cymru's economy spokesperson, highlighted the plan's focus on retaining wealth within Welsh communities and fostering the growth of Welsh-owned businesses.
Mr Fletcher said, "Our plan will see wealth built, retained, and recycled in our communities instead of it leaking, and in some cases flooding, out of Wales."
The plan also aims to deliver "good jobs," revamp town centres, and improve living standards.
Key pledges in the plan include enhanced support for Welsh businesses, a strategy for energy independence, and a future-focused skills strategy.
The plan also outlines a new approach to innovation, backed by a new deal for universities, and support for community-owned businesses, social enterprises, and co-operatives.
Mr Fletcher criticised Labour's long-standing governance, stating, "After 26 years of Labour in power, wages are too low, bills are too high, and too many decent businesses are closing their doors."
He emphasised that a Plaid Cymru government would advocate for small and medium-sized Welsh businesses and strive for control over resources like the Crown Estate.
The party plans to establish a new Welsh Development Agency to boost business growth.
Mr Fletcher also criticised other parties, stating, "Labour has let Wales down, and other parties have no answers.
"Plaid Cymru has the energy, ambition, and ideas to deliver the fresh start Wales needs."
It comes after more than 6,000 people marched through Barry on the weekend, calling for Welsh independence.
The March for Independence was organised by YesCymru and AUOBCymru.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
32 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Reeves has folded like the Tin Foil Chancellor she is
Rachel Reeves confirmed on Wednesday that she is a ' spend today, tax tomorrow ' Chancellor. Her spending spree on the country's credit card has set us on a collision course with the autumn when more tax rises will hit working families' pockets hard. After a year of chaos, how can anyone take this Government seriously? Rather than using the spending review as an opportunity to deliver secure public finances, the Chancellor is instead lurching from one disaster to the next. The cruel cuts to winter fuel payments, the £30 billion Chagos Islands surrender and the billions in no-strings-attached union handouts are all chickens that have come home to roost. When the pressure is on, the self-styled 'Iron Chancellor' folds like the 'Tin Foil Chancellor' she really is. She promised to get borrowing down, but the deficit is up by 70 per cent on her watch. She pledged no new taxes rises, yet more are on their way. She pledged not to change pensioner benefits, then U-turned. Then U-turned again. The only consistent thing about her is her inconsistency. Her own MPs, Cabinet ministers and Labour's trade union paymasters smell weakness. They know she's vulnerable and they will demand more money – and get it if they shout loud enough. The Chancellor has boxed herself into a corner. We face an extra £200 billion of borrowing this Parliament compared with the last Conservative Budget, with £80 billion more in interest payments alone. We are almost a year in but no economic plan is forthcoming. Our country is exposed. We have no room left to respond to shocks in global markets. Interest rates and mortgages are staying higher for longer because of her choices, as the OBR has said. She trumpets the hundreds of billions in extra spending she has announced while on the other hand claiming to have fixed the public finances. It simply doesn't make sense. She claims there is 'still work to do to ensure the sums add up'. That's not stability, it's uncertainty – the very last thing markets want to hear. It is not just markets. Her abject failure means British families have seen inflation almost double, unemployment rise, growth stalling, debt interest soar and pensioners sacrificed. The country is worse off because of her choices. What of the winter fuel U-turn? Last summer, pensioners were left out in the cold to avoid 'a run on the pound', as Labour's Lucy Powell put it. Now they claim they can afford to reverse it because they have fixed the economy and the finances – but economists are saying both are in a worse state since Labour came to office. Nothing's changed except the Government's credibility, which is vanishing. Rock bottom confidence There was nothing in her review restore rock bottom business confidence. Payrolls fell by over 100,000 last month alone. Unemployment is up 10 per cent since Labour took office. Only businesses create growth and jobs. But our Chancellor has not yet learnt that basic lesson of economics, her fingers planted firmly in her ears whilst the alarm bells are ringing. Similarly, the first and most important duty of any Prime Minister is keeping the country safe. But even as the world is becoming more dangerous and a new axis of evils draws their battle lines, there was no further progress towards spending 3 per cent of GDP on defence, which Labour claim to be committed to. They stood firm on the Chagos surrender, which is paying for tax cuts for Mauritians while we suffer, costing our country £30 billion to lease back our own land. There is no urgency on the issues of the day. The Home Office budget too has been significantly hit by asylum costs, while illegal crossings soar. Rather than point the finger at everyone else, the Chancellor should take responsibility and fix the problems she has created. Instead, the socialist's lazy embrace of high spending, more borrowing and higher taxes beckons – leaving our public finances dangerously vulnerable. If we were in charge, we would take a different approach. We wouldn't kill growth with tax rises and red tape. We'd restore confidence, focus on efficiency and productivity, and reform welfare to get people off benefits and into work. At the end of the day, it's working people and businesses who will pay – with higher taxes, higher costs, and fewer opportunities. This Spending Review is unaffordable, and so is this Chancellor.
Daily Mail
38 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Business counts cost of Labour's bloated state amid fears Chancellor is set to launch another tax raid
Business has been left fearing another tax raid after the Chancellor's spending review failed to shrink the bloated state. Bosses demanded that Rachel Reeves show leadership by tackling public sector waste – as the private sector is having to cut its cloth as Government-imposed costs surge. Reeves told MPs she would be 'relentless in driving out efficiencies', claiming billions would be saved through greater productivity and more use of artificial intelligence (AI). But her announcement did nothing to change the size of the spending 'envelope' set out at the time of her Spring Statement, leaving many fearing the worst in this autumn's Budget. Analysis of official forecasts cited by former Bank of England rate-setter Andrew Sentance shows spending as a proportion of GDP will average 44.6 per cent during Labour's parliamentary term. 'However Rachel Reeves spins her spending review, this Government is planning the biggest spending review since World War Two, outdoing even Denis Healey [in the 1970s] in spending as a share of GDP,' Sentance said. That profligacy has come at a cost: higher taxes. Businesses have so far borne the brunt, as the Chancellor's £25billion raid on employer National Insurance Contributions (NICs) in last autumn's Budget left them scrambling to find savings – and, in many cases, cut jobs – as they also grappled with a sharp rise in the minimum wage. The spending review will not improve that situation. In fact, it has only heightened fears that Reeves will put taxes up again. That is because a worsening economic picture – partly thanks to Donald Trump's trade war – could take its toll on growth and, therefore, reduce the tax take. Higher borrowing costs are also making it harder for the Chancellor's sums to add up. Reeves insisted that the fiscal rules obliging her to balance the books are 'non-negotiable' – meaning something will have to give. The Institute of Directors (IoD) voiced hopes that some of the Chancellor's efficiency measures could be used to help business. Anna Leach, chief economist at the IoD, said: 'We would expect over time for savings to be used to bring down the tax burden from its post-war record.' But the Chancellor made clear that she had no intention of doing so. Instead, she boasted that 'every single penny [will be] reinvested back in our public services' – raising eyebrows in the City given the state of the public finances and long-term projections that they will get even worse over coming decades. 'Makes sense when your debt is on a sustainable path, less so when debt [as a proportion of GDP] is heading to 270 per cent and interest costs £105billion/year,' said Simon French, chief economist at broker Panmure Liberum. It all added up, experts said, to an inevitable tax raid this autumn. The frustration for bosses is that while the Chancellor recycles cash around the public sector – part of her plan includes hiring thousands more staff to collect tax – they are having to make tough choices after being battered by her tax raids. Steve Hare, chief executive of UK software firm Sage, noted in an interview with the BBC that while his clients – small and medium businesses – were 'trying to drive their own productivity and efficiency', the size of the Civil Service workforce had swollen to more than half a million. For some firms, efficiencies may not be enough. Michael Turner, chairman of pubs group Fullers, warned: 'The changes to NICs took everyone by surprise and I fear it could be terminal for a number of smaller operators in our market.' The Confederation of British Industry (CBI), Britain's main business lobby group, has warned that the prospect of further tax increases risked further damaging sentiment. 'Businesses are labouring under the cumulative burden of rises in NICs and minimum wages,' said CBI chief executive Rain Newton-Smith. She added: 'With the Autumn Budget now coming sharply into focus, the Chancellor should prioritise squashing tax rumours and speculation that risks stymying confidence and subduing investment decisions.' But others were broadly resigned that more punishment is on the horizon. 'Tax rises are now all but inevitable... no matter what measures are taken between now and the Budget,' said Alison Ring, the director at the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales. She added: 'The Government's sticking plaster strategy remains an obstacle to addressing the deep-set challenges facing the country.'
NBC News
40 minutes ago
- NBC News
Wisconsin group sues Elon Musk, alleging million-dollar check giveaways were voter bribes
A Wisconsin watchdog group has filed a lawsuit against Elon Musk claiming that he unlawfully bribed voters with million dollar checks and $100 giveaways in the state's latest Supreme Court election. Wisconsin Democracy Campaign — a non-partisan, nonprofit organization that investigates election transparency — along with two Wisconsin voters, filed the suit against Musk, his super PAC America PAC, and another Musk-owned entity called the United States of America Inc.. In the suit, the plaintiffs claimed that Musk and his entities violated state laws that prohibit vote bribery and unauthorized lotteries. It also accuses Musk of conducting civil conspiracy and acting as a public nuisance. Musk and America PAC did not respond to a request for comment. 'In the context of an election for Wisconsin's highest court, election bribery—providing more than $1 to induce electors (that is, voters) to vote— undermines voters' faith in the validity of the electoral system and the independence of the judiciary,' the suit reads. The complaint alleges that Musk violated state laws giving away $100 to voters who signed a petition 'in opposition to activist judges' and handing out million dollar checks to those who signed the petition. and The suit says that those who had won the checks had voted for candidate Brad Schimel. At a town hall in Green Bay, Musk gave away million dollar checks to two different people, both of which the suit claims voted for Schimel. In a video America PAC posted on X, one of the winners said he had voted for Schimel and encouraged others to do the same. 'Everyone needs to do what I just did, sign the petition, refer your friends, and go out to vote for Brad Schimel,' the winner, Nicholas Jacobs, said in the video. The suit mentions that Musk had said that the $1 million awards would be given 'in appreciation' for those 'taking the time to vote.' Despite Musk's America PAC spending over $12 million dollars on Schimel's campaign, candidate Susan Crawford still won the race. Before the race had been called, Wisconsin attorney general Josh Kaul filed a similar lawsuit against Musk for his involvement in the state Supreme Court election, but a county judge declined to immediately hold a hearing. A Pennsylvania judge similarly declined a request to block Musk's million-dollar giveaways in the state. During the presidential election, Musk's America PAC had also given out million dollar checks to people registered to vote in swing states, which the Justice Department had warned could be illegal. Musk defended his giveaways during the presidential election despite the allegations of unlawfulness by saying that those who signed the petition weren't given the money as a prize and that chance 'was not involved here.' Those who signed the petition were instead America PAC spokespeople with the 'opportunity to earn' $1 million. 'Make no mistake: an eligible voter's opportunity to earn is not the same thing as a chance to win,' Musk said, according to Reuters. Jeff Mendel, the co-founder of Law Forward — the law firm that filed the suit on behalf of the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign — said in an interview with NBC News that this lawsuit has the advantage of additional time. 'The election is over. Some passions have cooled, and we are bringing this in a normal posture, asking the court to go through its normal procedure,' Mendel said. 'We are confident that we'll get a complete and fair adjudication.' The Wisconsin Democracy Campaign's lawsuit also seeks to bar Musk from 'replicating any such unlawful conduct in relation to future Wisconsin elections.' 'Almost everyone who was watching closely or saw what was happening here in Wisconsin in that very tight period was pretty horrified, and would say things like, 'Well, this can't possibly be legal,' or 'he can't possibly get away with this,'' Mendel said. 'That's really the purpose of this lawsuit, is to make sure that a court does say — in accord with both the law and, I think people across the political spectrums intuition — that this is not legal conduct, this is not consistent with how our democracy works, and to make sure it doesn't happen again.'
