Gething’s hollow victory

“INTEGRITY”. Jeremy Miles mentioned it in his statement after he narrowly failed to become leader of Labour in Wales.

Mr Miles said: “The outpouring of support from Welsh Labour members has been a source of genuine inspiration to me.

“While the result is not what we worked hard for, I am incredibly proud of the passion, dedication, integrity and professionalism of our campaign.”

In this context, “integrity” is more than a word dropped casually into a list of adjectives praising his campaign.

Mr Gething has a problem convincing the public he has acted with or has integrity.

It’s hard to escape the notion that Vaughan Gething’s every decision, ideal, polished phrase, and neatly pressed cuff, collar, and tie has been tailored to serve his political ambitions.

Whether that constitutes “integrity” depends on one’s point of view.

From rigged union ballots to the £200,000 contribution to his leadership campaign to his arrogant dismissal of journalists questioning him about that donation, Mr Gething’s rise to the leadership of Labour in Wales is marked by careerist ambition, entitled arrogance, and (as you might expect from a Welsh Government minister) an unwillingness to face up to or answer scrutiny.

He won’t return the £200,000 donation because it was made and accepted “within the rules”.

Imagine how that plays while the Labour Party tries making the moral case for the Conservatives to return £10m in donations to Frank Hester.

Mr Hester’s donations were made within the rules. His appalling and racist remarks about Diane Abbott MP do not change their lawfulness.

The word “hypocrite” is over-used about politicians.

However, if the cap fits, wear it.

A VICTORY BY THE NUMBERS

The electorate eligible to vote in the leadership election was 118,000.

That electorate consists of 18,000 individual Labour Party members and 100,000 members of trade unions.

Those holding trade union membership and individual Labour Party membership can vote twice.

57.8% of the 18,000 individual members voted in the election.

9.4% of the 100,000 trade union members voted.

The overall turnout was 16.1%.

Mr Gething won with a vote share of 51.7% against Mr Miles’s 48.3%.

From those figures, the following becomes clear:

10,400 individual members voted.

9,400 union members voted.

The total number of votes cast was 19,800.

Mr Gething got 51.7% of those votes.

Therefore, the total number of votes cast for Vaughan Gething was around 10,200.

10,200 is approximately 8.6% of the eligible electorate.

In short, less than 9% of the Labour Party electorate supported Vaughan Gething’s leadership bid.

It is hardly a ringing endorsement.

It’s no better, of course, for Jeremy Miles, who got fewer votes (c. 9,600).

The difference between the candidates is around 600 votes.

Now, let’s drill deeper into the data.

Among ordinary party members, the split between the candidates was 50.7% to Mr Gething against 49.3% to Mr Miles.

Mapping those percentages into the turnout shows that Mr

Gething received around 5,300 votes from the membership, compared to 4,900 for Mr Miles.

In the crucial union ballot, Mr Gething received 52.7% of the votes, compared to 47.4% for Mr Miles.

Mapping those percentages into the turnout figures shows that Mr Gething got around 4,950 votes, and Mr Miles got around 4,600.

The figures are rounded and necessarily approximate.

We cannot know how many union members who are individual members voted twice for the same candidate.

Suppose Mr Gething’s campaign double-dipped the electorate using the union membership lists unavailable to Mr Miles’s campaign. In that case, it beggars belief that the double votes did not break unevenly for Mr Gething over his opponent.

With such a pitifully low turnout and such a slender margin of victory, Mr Gething’s victory is an even weaker endorsement than would appear from the bare 5248 vote split overall.

“DEEP CONCERNS” BUT NO SIGN OF ACTING ON THEM

Conservative Senedd leader Andrew RT Davies has made the only (facetious) offer of support for Mr Gething.

Meanwhile, Plaid Cymru Leader Rhun ap Iorwerth MS expressed deep concern that “we now have an incoming First Minister who, before even taking up the highest public office, is facing serious allegations and questions about his judgement.”

At the time of writing, however, Plaid Cymru has failed to answer our questions about whether those “deep concerns” mean Plaid will back Mr Gething in the vote to become First Minister, whether they will oppose Mr Gething’s nomination, or whether they shall abstain.

Mr ap Iorwerth also says of Mr Gething: “He has sat around the Cabinet table and held key portfolios while Wales’s economy has stagnated, NHS waiting lists have grown, and child poverty remains a national scandal. Nothing said during the leadership campaign suggests we will now see a gearchange in addressing these huge challenges.”

At the time of writing, however, Plaid Cymru failed to answer questions about whether it would stick with a Cooperation Agreement that props up the status quo in Cardiff Bay.

CHALLENGE AND OPPORTUNITY

Plaid has already sold out its commitment to the Single Transferrable Vote for future Senedd elections on a laughable pretext and has agreed to support the Sustainable Farming Scheme.

Having paid the price for Adam Price’s tenure as leader and his predecessor’s even more disastrous inheritance, Plaid must decide whether it is a political party or a Labour Party pressure group. Plaid’s leadership must decide— and quickly—whether Rhun ap Iorwerth’s “deep concerns” mean anything or are no more than an empty gesture.

As for the Conservatives, with the right discipline, focus, and attention to detail, Mr Gething’s election is like all their Christmases have come simultaneously.

An unpopular leader with a short fuse, who most of his party knows is an electoral liability.

They don’t have to look far for inspiration to exploit that situation.