This is just embarrassing for Welsh democracy
Plus Vaughan Gething has arranged to go on a pointless trip India
It’s happening again! We are going to have to talk about Vaughan Gething.
But because I have no intention of renaming this newsletter “The Will Hayward talks about Vaughan Gething Newsletter” I am going to cover some other topics first starting with the PCC election.
A democratic farce
The only elections in Wales last week were for the Police and Crime Commissioners. Two newsletters back we went into detail about how these roles are a pointless old boys club so I won’t rehash that. But I do want to look at both the pathetic turnout in these elections and what the new people taking up the roles need to do.
Let’s breakdown the turnout in the four Welsh Police forces starting with Gwent Police.
The turnout in Gwent was 15.45%
Of that 15%, just under 42% voted for the winner (Labour’s Jane Mudd)
This means that of an electorate of 442K people, just 28K voted for the winner.
This, err, ground swell of support comprising just 6.5% of the electorate has catapulted Ms Mudd (whose name is a headline writer's dream) into a £73,000 a year job for four years.
Things weren’t much better in South Wales where the winner got 7.9% of the possible voters and it was even worse in North Wales where it was 6.2%. I can't give you Dyfed Powys because the turnout was announced by council, not the whole force area.
A few things to say here. Firstly, these elections have always been a joke but they didn’t have to be this bad. This decision by the Conservative Government switched from the Supplementary Vote (SV) system, where voters could choose a first and second choice vote to first-past-the-post. This change was part of the controversial Elections Act 2022, which also enforced mandatory photo ID for voters. Or as Jacob Rees-Mogg defined it, an attempt to “gerrymander” future elections.
The other thing to say is that the last PCC election in 2021 was held at the same time as the Senedd election meaning turnout was inevitably higher. In that election the turnout for the four Welsh police forces was higher than any of the votes in England. The results were:
Dyfed-Powys - 51% (The highest in England and Wales)
North Wales - 45%
South Wales - 44%
Gwent - 41%
No English force broke 40% (despite some areas having local elections) with Wiltshire the lowest in 2021 with just 16.6% (comparable with Wales in this election).
Given that we know there is going to be a General Election this year, I would have thought it would have made sense from a turnout and cost saving point of view to extend the PCC election to that point.
Nothing sums up how pointless the role is like this tweet
Chief constable of Gwent Police Pam Kelly inadvertently summed up the shortcomings of the PCC role in a Twitter thread she posted after Ms Mudd was elected. She wrote:
I'm delighted to welcome Jane Mudd as the new Police and Crime Commissioner for Gwent on behalf of all officers, staff and volunteers at Gwent Police.
Her previous experience in public service will be invaluable in scrutinising us and holding this police service to account all the while ensuring the public, especially victims of crime, feel heard.
The PCC's responsibility is to provide a sustainable budget for the force so that we can deliver an emergency service for our public.
However, it is also important, especially during these very challenging times, that we demonstrate through our shared role as custodians of frontline policing, our support and appreciation for the outstanding staff who every day save lives and protect our communities.
Congratulations Jane! Really looking forward to working in close collaboration with you in the near future.
There are a few things here. Firstly the tone of it is just terrible. Chief constables should be really apprehensive about the new PCC, not congratulating them like they are someone they went to uni with on Linkedin.
While she pays lip service to the fact the PCC should be holding there force to account she then lobbies for money and talks about how they will work in “close collaboration” while saying the new commissioner will show “appreciation for the outstanding staff” in the force.
This wildly misses the point of the PCC. They are not there to be spokesperson or cheerleader for the force, they are there to hold them accountable. Under the terms of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011, PCCs must:
secure efficient and effective police for their area.
appoint the Chief Constable, hold them to account for running the force, and if necessary, dismiss them.
set the police and crime objectives for their area through a police and crime plan;
set the force budget and determine the precept;
contribute to the national and international policing capabilities set out by the Home Secretary; and
bring together community safety and criminal justice partners, to make sure local priorities are joined up.
Nowhere does it suggest that this entails an unwavering defence of the force against merited criticism (see here for the context). To be fair to chief constable Kelly, the previous PCC Jeff Cuthbert was very much a hype man for the force rather than a scrutiniser.
Perhaps Jane Mudd will buck this trend and fulfil the trust placed in her by 6.5% of the people of Gwent.
Vaughan Gething - When in doubt, go to India?
The First Minister has been under the pump ever since he took the job he always dreamed of. He has completely failed to get on top of the donations scandal and has now been hit with the accusation he deleted text messages so they couldn’t be found by a freedom of information request. This lead the Plaid Cymru leader to suggest that he committed perjury under oath.
What is Mr Gething’s PR response to this crisis? You would think it would be a good one. If you look at the changes to the special advisers in his administration there are marked differences between his and Drakeford’s. Whereas Drakeford’s team were more from a policy background, Vaughan Gething’s is more based around PR.
So what is the plan to steady the ship. It turns out the way of regaining momentum (if indeed he ever had it), is to fly to India to talk to Tata about the looming job losses at Port Talbot.
Now on the one hand this could be a good plan. The changes to the steelworks is a really big deal to both that part of Wales and the wider UK (I would like to do a specific newsletter on it). The leader of Wales heading to India to stand up for Welsh workers and get some concessions is, on the face of it, not a terrible idea. Except for the fact it is totally pointless.
There is absolutely no chance whatsoever of Vaughan Gething getting any concessions from Tata. I really hope I am wrong about this, but I am pretty sure I am not. He isn’t meeting the head of Tata, he is meeting the CEO and CFO of Tata Steel Group.
For some context, last May Rishi Sunak met with the real top man, the chair of the Tata Group Natarajan Chandrasekaran in London. On the table were the future of Port Talbot, the ambition for an electric car battery plant Tata has since confirmed it will build in Somerset and hundreds of millions in subsidies. In contrast, Mr Gething is flying to India with nothing to offer, a short meeting with lower-level executives in the diary and a proposal the company has already given clear reasons why it is rejecting.
The Labour plan to build an electric arc furnace inside a working plant, is considered dangerous and unworkable by the company. There is just no way he is going to come back from this trip with anything to show for it (again, I really hope I eat my words here).
This trip is not going to be cheap. As I understand it Mr Gething is taking 5-6 other people with him. God knows why.
This begs the question of why is he going? Normally when political leaders go on a trip it is to rubber stamp a previous agreed deal. This means they know they are getting a win and don’t risk the embarrassment of coming back empty handed.
Given the low chance of success I can only conclude that this trip is simply so Mr Gething’s team can argue that he is out there fighting for Welsh jobs. To be fair to them, anything would be better than him just getting pummelled relentlessly in the Senedd while his own MSs watch on with utter contempt on their faces.
Just when you thought things couldn’t get any worse…
"I’m deleting the messages in this group. They can be captured in an FOI [Freedom of Information request] and I think we are all in the right place on the choice being made."
This is the iMessage from Vaughan Gething to a Welsh Gov ministerial group in August 2020.
Mr Gething wasn’t able to give all his Whatsapps and messages to the UK Covid Inquiry. Giving evidence he admitted having no access to "any of the texts or WhatsApp messages” sent during his time as minister for health and social services. He said all messages from his first Senedd phone were transferred to a second one which he was given July 2021 onwards but when it was taken for maintenance in July 2022 he lost all the messages.”
He told the inquiry:
"When I moved from my first Senedd mobile to my second one I did actually have access to all the messages on my new Senedd phone. What then happened was... that, following a security rebuild, all of the WhatsApp messages were wiped. That includes all my personal ones as well, things that had nothing to do with the government. So messages with my family, for example. So everything went.
I would much prefer it if I’d been able to so you could have seen what was in them and what was not in them."
I have no idea if Mr Gething did delete messages that were relevant to the Covid Inquiry. What I do know is that what the Welsh Government considers to be of “relevance” to the Inquiry is a very fluid definition which they seem to apply in whatever way is most convenient for them.
Back in February in the Senedd Mark Drakeford refused to answer any questions about Covid because it would disrespect the inquiry. Now, Vaughan Gething can confidently assert that what he said he would delete had no relevance to the Inquiry.
It seems unlikely that the Inquiry will look favourably on Mr Gething. Several times the barristers for the Inquiry have said that the discussion that led to decisions are as important as the decisions themselves. They are really interested in process because part of their remit is about understanding how decisions were made so better decisions can be made in the future.
Speaking to WalesOnline a spokesperson for the UK Covid-19 Inquiry said:
"These reports have been brought to the attention of the Inquiry. The Inquiry is considering the information available and whether it is necessary to seek further evidence from Mr Gething.”
If Mr Gething were recalled to give evidence to the Inquiry the optics would be appalling. He will be hoping that he can just bury his head in the sand, say “no rules were broken” and head to India to let this blow over. Unfortunately there are still several elements of the controversies he faces that are still to come to light. Speaking of which…
Where’s the money gone?
Both Welsh and UK Labour are ignoring any questions regarding where the leftover donation money from a criminal will be going. According to the rules, anything left over from the £200k that Mr Gething accepted from a criminal was due to go to the Labour Party.
This was going to cause quite a headache for Keir Starmer who has two options:
1. Accept money from a company found guilty of environmental offences into Labour coffers
Or
2. Reject the money. Thereby making Mr Gething's decision to accept it look even worse.
However, people within the party have been briefing that this money wasn’t going to UK Labour but instead to Welsh Labour.
But this begs more questions than it answers.
There is no "Welsh Labour" account. So what happens? Does UK Labour take it then allocate it to Welsh Labour? If this is the case, surely UK Labour are still accepting it?
I approached both Welsh and UK Labour and asked the following questions:
1. What is the deadline for the respective campaigns to return the money raised from donations to the Labour Party?
2. Will the money be going to the UK Labour Party or Welsh Labour?
3. If the answer to the above is "UK Labour", who makes the final decision on whether to accept the money?
4. If the answer is "Welsh Labour" then can you please explain how that will work? As we understand it there is no Welsh Labour bank account. Will this money go to UK Labour and then be allocated to Welsh Labour?
They both refused to answer any of these questions. I have asked repeatedly and chased them for an answer - nothing.
They clearly think they can just ignore it and it will go away. This is unacceptable from any party, but especially one presenting itself as a government in waiting. They would be furiously calling for answers if this was the Tories.
However people familiar with internal Labour Party processes have told me that the Ethical Gifts Policy for Labour precluded criminals donating. I was also informed that the Director of Fundraising, General Secretary and Director of Comms for Mr Starmer will automatically look at anything over £100k or with outsized political risk.
There is a good chance that the leftover cash won’t meet the threshold but I was told that accepting it “will 100% be a General Secretary decision based on political risk”.
You are a saint and martyr if you have managed to wade through this. It is my longest newsletter and my big crescendo was to hit you with loads of internal Labour procedures.
As always, thanks for reading.
Take care
Will