He’s out! Vaughan Gething announced he’ll resign as First Minister of Wales. The unexpected move came yesterday morning, after four of his cabinet ministers resigned en-masse and called for him to go. This set off speculation that Gething would act as he did following the successful vote of no confidence in his leadership by the Senedd – simply ignoring it – while branding his colleagues’ resignations as a gimmick. But no, he capitulated a few hours later.
Gething has been the bane of this column throughout its existence. With this being a Wednesday column, I aim to have my final draft submitted to our Editirix-in-Chief as early as I can on a Tuesday. But Gething’s scandals nearly always develop at the last minute and the draft must be torn up or extensively rewritten, to keep you all updated on his latest shenanigans – so we scramble. Yesterday was certainly that, on steroids!
Gething away with it no more
Jeremy Miles, who Gething narrowly defeated by the infernal 52-48 ratio in the recent Labour leadership contest, was joined by fellow cabinet ministers Mick Antoniw, Julie James, and Lesley Griffiths yesterday morning in jointly resigning from the Welsh Government. Remember that the Welsh cabinet is much smaller than the UK’s, so this was near-enough a third of Gething’s membership.
Bear in mind, too, that Gething ignored the democratic voice of the Senedd when it voted that it had no confidence in his leadership. That should be the end of any democrat, but no; he branded it a gimmick and some of his supporters alleged it was purely an act of racism. Therefore, it was reasonable to think he’d try and style this latest development out too. Whether it was an act of conscience (unlikely judging by his resignation statement) or a phone call from Westminster that pushed him out of office is not yet known.
Thin as paper
Just before resigning, Gething finally published the ‘evidence’ he has consistently claimed would prove that the leak of his damaging iMessages to the media came from Hannah Blythyn’s phone. Blythyn, of course, is the minister he controversially sacked. Well, the evidence proved to be as thin as a Rizla paper. It proves nothing on its own – a point Gething-the-lawyer might have spotted, if he didn’t have his Gething-the-politician hat on at the time.
The evidence is two photographs of a phone; not screenshots but photographs. Gething claims they prove it was from Blythyn’s phone, because she isn’t one of the initialled contacts in the leaked chat. (All contacts bar yourself are initialled on the display bar of iMessage chats on your phone).
I’d point out that it’s incredibly easy to rename contacts in your phone, and they’ll then obviously display as what you’ve named them as on your device. It’s a move that’s easily in the wheelhouse of someone seeking to leak highly-sensitive information from a government, I’m sure we can agree. So it remains Gething’s word vs Blythyn’s, for anyone who understands how to operate a mobile phone.
But does the same line of thought exonerate Gething from deleting iMessages that should have been handed to the Covid Inquiry, I hear you ask? No, because he’s admitted he sent the messages attributed to him. You may recall that he initially claimed he’d sent the messages but they didn’t relate to a ministerial chat group. Then he tied himself in knots, saying that they were from a ministerial chat, when he tried to justify his sacking of Blythyn.
Where did it go wrong for the First Minister?
Perhaps the most interesting development of Gething’s publication of ‘evidence’ is that he appears to have caused huge issues for Julie James, one of the ministers who prompted his resignation. A previously unseen message in the chat group, allegedly from James, agrees fully that Gething’s instruction to delete said iMessages was the right thing to do. “Good point Vaughan,” she is alleged to have replied. It needs to be confirmed whether James did indeed send that message and, if so, she should follow Gething out the door.
So where did it all go wrong for him? Where to start?! Alarm bells really began to chime when Unite’s union nomination went to Gething in an underhanded manner, with many calling it a stitch-up. This included Miles, the person disadvantaged by Unite in favouring Gething. Instead of acknowledging the serious concerns that were being raised, Gething ignored them and waxed lyrical about Unite’s endorsement.
Where it really went pear-shaped for him, though, was not a tainted confirmation but tainted cash. If you recall, Gething received a £200,000 donation for his leadership campaign; the largest individual donation in the history of devolved politics in Wales. This happened to come from the company of a man who’d been convicted – with two suspended prison sentences – for environmental crimes. Again, Gething ignored concerns and ploughed on regardless, insisting that he’d broken no rules.
It then transpired that, on the same day the donation was made, the donee company submitted a planning application for a solar farm. This would need to be signed off by a Welsh Government minister, who’d be appointed by Gething to the relevant brief if he won the leadership contest. Again, Gething ignored concerns that this created a perception of being unethical.
Was it just the tainted cash?
Then it was revealed that Gething had previously lobbied Natural Resources Wales to go easy on one of his donor’s other businesses. The appearance of unethical behaviour began to snowball out of control, despite Gething continuing to ignore concerns.
This was further exacerbated when it emerged his donor had benefited from a £400,000 loan from the Development Bank of Wales, a Welsh Government-owned bank that happened to be overseen by Gething at the time this loan was issued. Again, Gething ignored concerns around standards and insisted he’d done nothing wrong.
One would think that, the moment it emerged your leadership campaign was in part bankrolled by a convicted polluter, you’d say words to the effect of: “I had no idea and am as equally shocked as you are. This should have been picked up during vetting and I apologise unreservedly for it not having been identified as an issue. I will of course return all funds to the donor.” Had that occurred, I doubt Gething would find himself in the situation he did yesterday, as quickly as he did.
I do think the tainted record-breaking donation was the point at which Gething became fatally stymied as First Minister – but not finished. Importantly, although the situation around the donation was in itself incredibly damaging, it was Gething’s hubris that pushed the issues out of control.
Leaky lips sink ships
With Gething’s reputation already damaged by his donations scandal, the leak happened. News broke that, contrary to evidence given at the UK Covid Inquiry, he’d allegedly deleted communications that should have been made available to the Inquiry. This prompted Gething to sack Blythyn, claiming she was the leak’s source.
It came to light that there hadn’t been a formal investigation into the leak, and due process didn’t seem to have been followed. Gething insisted he’d done nothing wrong, yet consistently refused to publish the evidence, or the relevant section of the confidential ministerial handbook he claimed to have followed.
Blythyn was savaged online by those who believed she’d been the leaker. This, combined with intense media coverage, saw her signed off work for some weeks due to impacts on her mental health. Blythyn returned to the Senedd last week, and delivered a brave statement in which she detailed the impact the events had on her wellbeing. She again denied being the source of the leak.
Gething didn’t acknowledge the contents of Blythyn’s statement. Instead, he chose to go on the offensive the following day, issuing a statement of his own in which he doubled down on the stance that Blythyn was justifiably sacked over the issue; again citing the evidence he claimed to hold. The footage of Blythyn shaking her head incredulously as Gething delivered his statement will be etched into Senedd history.
In the public domain
This prompted an unprecedented intervention from the news outlet Nation.Cymru, which broke the story regarding the leaked messages. In a statement from the outlet’s CEO, Mark Mansfield, Nation.Cymru confirmed that Blythyn had not been their anonymous source, who leaked the damaging iMessages sent by the embattled First Minister.
The statement cast doubt on Gething’s version of events, in saying it’s not possible for Gething to hold evidence proving Blythyn to be the source, as their source categorically was not her.
As mentioned earlier, this evidence was released yesterday morning prior to the First Minister’s resignation statement. Two photographs of someone’s phone screen. To say the evidence is flimsy would be kind. We remain in a one-word-against-another scenario. An important lesson to any political leader in future who suspects a colleague of wrongdoing: investigate it thoroughly first.
Nevertheless, regardless of the leak, it was all information that should have been in the public domain anyway – a point often omitted from commentary on this matter.
First VONC’d First Minister
The whole car-crash premiership of Gething has exposed deep flaws in the Senedd’s processes. He famously lost a vote of no confidence (VONC) in his leadership. Two of his own MS’s didn’t take part in that vote, so he was defeated by the majority of Wales’ elected members of the Senedd. This should be the point at which any democrat would abide by the will of Wales’ democratic voice and resign, right? Right?
Gething and the whole UK Labour Party machine went into overdrive to label the VONC as a “gimmick” and political stunt. Some of its highest profile names took these attack lines loudly on any media outlet that would have them. That seemed to confirm what the Senedd is in the eyes of the Labour Party – an institution that’s not to be respected. A bit of a parochial joke, a jape that lets Wales feel it has some say … unless that say becomes inconvenient for its ‘betters’.
It’s ironic, considering that Labour has been the dominant party throughout the Senedd’s existence. Frankly, the party’s stance was disgraceful and not befitting a self-identified democratic party.
It’s a damaging scar on devolution. That one act alone, by the Labour Party, has done more damage to the Senedd than Richard Suchorzewski’s motley crew in the Abolish party could have dreamed of doing in their most neo-imperial fantasies. That a deeply unpopular First Minister can simply ignore democratic processes if they choose highlights a critical weakness in the Senedd as an institution.
Appropriate media scrutiny?
I’d hope that our elected representatives learn from this and move to tighten up this glaring weakness. In defence of the Senedd, it’s often not until you have a leader that acts outrageously that these types of weaknesses are exposed. I hope arrangements can be made to ensure that any First Minister who loses a formal VONC in the Senedd chamber must resign – not just as a matter of honour, but a matter of law.
The media scrutiny that played such a crucial role in all this is a major talking point as the fallout descends from yesterday’s unexpected developments. Indeed, it’s a point put forward by Gething’s supporters since the first revelations emerged. The fact that they kept on coming may be inconvenient to Gething and his supporters, but they were certainly newsworthy.
There’ve been direct accusations of racism levelled at the media in general, and particularly those journalists at the forefront of reporting on the myriad scandals. Some say Gething has been held to a higher standard than a white person would have been. Has he? I don’t think that’s the case. I can categorically state that this column certainly hasn’t treated Gething differently because of his background. He’s done what he’s done. If anything, he’s got off easy in the circumstances.
Compare UK media scrutiny of Boris Johnson, Liz Truss, Nicola Sturgeon, and Alex Salmond to that of Gething. It hasn’t treated the First Minister’s issues the same, it’s true – his troubles have largely been ignored. Accusations over Keir Starmer’s curry during Covid and Angela Rayner’s house sale (in both cases, cleared of any blame by police inquiries) garnered more interest from the UK media than Gething’s travails. A reasonable argument could be made that Gething received less scrutiny than he should.
A dereliction of duty
However, accusations of different standards have been levelled extensively at the Welsh media – much more so than the UK media. It has been quite clear throughout that a very well-placed source in Welsh Labour has been feeding damaging information to trusted journalists. Those journalists, once satisfied that the information is accurate, have a duty to report it. The fourth estate plays an essential role in a democracy.
Quite simply, the Welsh media scene is stronger than it was in years gone by. This means there are more journalists able to deploy their resources and contacts to dig for information in the public interest.
Initial claims of ‘the more you dig, the less you’ll find’ with regard to the First Minister proved to be catastrophically, almost comically, inaccurate, as more and more information was revealed. This kind of information about any First Minister or leading politician must surely be covered. There are still some truths that remain to be established. But it would be a dereliction of duty not to report such issues pertaining to the leader of our country, elected by his party but not by Wales itself.
