Ed ~ A trusted source sent us the following report on Nathan Gill’s resignation from the Welsh Assembly, which we are happy to publish.
I’ve got to let you into a secret. The Cardiff Bay bubble is not very big. Tŷ Hywel, the building that houses the National Assembly for Wales Offices, is hardly the scale of Westminster or Brussels and, as a result, if you want to keep something quiet, you’ve got a job on your hands; because almost everybody knows everybody else and word gets around very, very quickly.
And so it came to pass that on the third day of Christmas, my true love gave to me not three French hens, but rather a lame duck. I say that because the fact that Nathan Gill was going to resign his Assembly Seat was common knowledge. It was only a matter of when not if; and it would seem that Nathan chose the dead of the Christmas Recess to announce that he wanted to spend more time in the European Parliament to “give the majority of voters who backed “Leave” in Wales the representation that they deserve and need in Brussels”. I’ll come back to Nathan’s history of representing his constituents later.
To give some background into why this was such a non-event, one has to look back to the very first days of this Assembly term when the seven newly-elected UKIP AMs needed to choose a Group leader. By a majority of four votes to three, they elected Neil Hamilton who, to be fair, has done an excellent job of holding the First Minister to account at the dispatch box.
Nathan had, before he was elected, vowed to give up his seat in the European Parliament if he became an Assembly Member. After his election to the Assembly, he promptly backtracked on this pledge, amongst calls from UKIP both in Wales and nationally for him to give up a seat and not to “double-job”. By August 2016, just three months into the Assembly term, Nathan said he was leaving the UKIP Group to sit as an independent AM as, he claimed, “infighting” had become a “distraction” from its work. That was frankly rubbish. There was no conflict in the Group itself; there was just Gill and the rest of the Group who had rallied around Neil Hamilton. By that time, Nathan was hardly in Cardiff and had largely become an irrelevance.
The calls for Nathan to give up one of his two jobs were intensified after the election of Henry Bolton as our leader. When interviewed by ITV Wales (at 3.01 on this video) about the situation, Henry agreed it was “untidy”. Asked if there was a solution in the long term, Henry simply and very knowingly replied: “I would say short to medium term”. I have no doubt that Henry’s gentle influence has helped to sort this mess out.
Nathan’s voting record in the Assembly is truly appalling. Only a few weeks ago, there was a key vote on the bullying scandal currently gripping the Welsh Government. This would have forced an inquiry into the First Minister undertaken by a special Assembly Committee. This was not small beer, and the numbers were such that opposition parties could have forced the First Minister to vote to save his own skin and taken it to the wire with a casting vote from the Presiding Officer. We could have done, had Gill been there, but as usual, he wasn’t in his place. In fact, Gill hadn’t spoken in the Assembly Chamber since 18th July this year, and he was rarely seen in his office…until that changed just very recently.
So I turn to the longest resignation letter in history, which began in earnest several weeks ago when Nathan’s Assembly staff mysteriously disappeared overnight. To this day, we don’t know what’s happened to them, but they haven’t been seen on the Assembly estate for weeks. They’re actually still listed on the Assembly’s staff directory, but emails will have gone unanswered, as their IT kit was oddly handed back on the day they all vanished. We hope they’re OK.
Nathan himself was then conspicuous by his presence. Rather than sit in the Chamber, he was regularly seen pacing up and down corridors racking up his mobile phone bill. The rumour mill went into overdrive, and even a fortnight ago when directly challenged about a potential resignation on Twitter by Llanelli AM Lee Waters, Gill said: “Sorry Lee, you’re stuck with me”. This prompted an amusing intervention by the Plaid AM for North Wales, Llyr Gruffydd, who pointed out to BBC Wales that an Assembly staffer was using Gill’s personal parking space in the underground car park because they knew it would inevitably be empty – see this report (and note the date of publication!)
Either Nathan was providing an “alternative fact” when he said we were stuck with him, or there must have been a sudden change of heart. I say that because just as the Christmas Recess started, and most staffers had gone home to their families, I spotted Gill in his office handing over confidential waste sacks full of paperwork to the porters and walking out with an archive box, presumably full of personal effects and trinkets. Later that day, I also heard that he’d handed back his Assembly issue laptop and mobile phone, so surely by now the game was up, and an announcement was inevitable.
So, what now for the UKIP Group in the Assembly? Well, it’s not as if Nathan made an impact when he was in the Group, let alone as an independent. To that end, given that we’ve seen Mark Reckless defect from the periphery of the UKIP Group to the periphery of the Conservative Group, we’ll be back up to six Members. This will help with the workload of the individual AMs, but more importantly, it will also give the people of North Wales the second UKIP Member they voted for. It will also give the Group increased stability as we move forward into 2018 with renewed energy to take UKIP’s agenda to the Assembly and the people of Wales.
For me Mr Gill will be forever tainted by his attempt to keep hold of both jobs.
One of the things I despise most about the Great British Establishment is its members’ utter greed : I had hoped that UKIP existed in part to attack this phenomenon ( Don’t you find it embarrassing that our MPs and Lords can be bought by such ‘gifts’ [ there’s no such thing, of course ] as seats at football matches and Glyndebourne ? )
Anyone who is privileged to be elected to Parliament or other assemblies should be grateful for the stipend of three times the national average wage ( and for a part time job only ).
To seek to grasp the stipends of TWO of these sinecures, having specifically pledged not to do so if successful in the second election – has never been explained as anything other than pure greed.
I’m sorry but I find such behaviour despicable.
Pity he can’t resign from the EU P’ment as well and let someone more deserving ( hopefully) take up that position for the fag end of its life.
The ‘farce’ of the double jobbing came about because of the ‘farcical’ candidate selection process.
It should have been left to Welsh Regions to select candidates has in the past, and without the cost and controversies of 2016.
Nobody to date, has addressed the concerns of the membership. Rules appear to change to suit ambitions rather than the party! It is clear that a new constitution is needed, and no changes made without a ‘composite motion’ at conference, by branch delegates designated in advance. Even labour abide by that rule.
To me the report lacks balance. I believe there’s another side to this story. So I offer an alternative view of Nathan Gill.
I believe Nathan Gill has been disgracefully treated by UKIP. Not by all of UKIP of course. But, amongst others, by current members of the Welsh Assembly, previously by associates and fellow-travellers of the damaging Carswell cabal, and by elements of the increasingly delinquent NEC and administrative team that so frustrated Nigel Farage.
Nigel Farage supported Nathan Gill. So did Diane James, who went on to resign herself complaining that she was being hamstrung by ‘the Old Guard’.
Despite all the attacks on Nathan she removed Neil Hamilton, to his visible fury, from the speaking order at the 2016 Conference and replaced him with Nathan.
If you have the time, please listen to the warmth of Nathan’s reception at the conference, the simple record of his many years of service, and observe the standing ovation his speech received at the end:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RR8_pv62iiQ
You might also be interested in Nathan’s Facebook resignation announcement of the 27th Dec 2017, not mentioned in the report:
https://www.facebook.com/NathanGillOfficial
And also his ‘open letter’ response to the NEC’s decision back in August 2016:
http://nathangill.wales/2016/08/01/my-open-letter-response-to-necs-decision/
I think Nathan’s years of service to UKIP entitle him to fairness. I don’t think he’s received that.
Howard – while I won’t enter into a debate about the ‘niceness’ of Nathan, allow me to categorically refute your allegation that he was badly treated by UKIP or UKIP Wales.
The Party has the rule of not allowing double-jobbing. As there report makes clear (and as we’ve reported in articles sine July 2016): Nathan stood for the Assembly as MEP, giving assurances that he would resign his job in Brussels should he win.
He did not. Until now. 1 ½ years after he should’ve.
It is interesting that you refer to his nice speeches – but seemingly brush aside the report on how he actually did the work he was elected for as AM, namely hardly at all.
IMHO, there’s more to having the title ‘leader’ and giving nice speeches. There’s the work in the assembly or Brussels. We know he did not do the job for which he was elected by the hard work of so many Kippers who supported him during that election.
Why is it that so many – even here on UKIP Daily – seem to think that doing the nitty-gritty, day-to-day work for which our candidates had been elected with our help – don’t forget that! – is irrelevant provided there’s one or two speeches which are ‘well received’ at Conference? And why is it that the ‘word of a leader’ is given more consideration than the actual, eye-witness reports of people who are and have actually been there?
Viv – much of your robust response I can agree with. I recognise both the local knowledge and direct contact that informs your comments.
However, I think that the Welsh situation reflected the national problems within UKIP at the time and so matters were rather more complicated.
I hope this extract from Section 10 of Tomaz Slivnik’s resignation letter, at least partially, illustrates my point:
“So, at the 8 August 2016 meeting, a couple of hours after Nathan was expelled, at the instigation of the Party Chairman and the Party Treasurer, the NEC voted to give our consent under Article 4.4.1, should Nathan decide to re-apply for membership, and the Party Chairman suggested that he would call Nathan and invite him to re-apply. The Party Chairman later confirmed that Nathan did re-apply and was re-admitted.
Again, at the Party Chairman’s and the Party Treasurer’s instigation, the NEC voted to commission a ballot of our Welsh members, at the likely cost of £5,000, to ask them whether they wanted Nathan re-expelled or not, and then re-expel him if the members so wanted.
There are a couple of problems with this.
First, Nathan now has a new membership contract, whereas his “no double jobbing” commitment was made under the old membership contract (before expulsion), so in my view, his commitment is no longer binding and the NEC has no constitutional or legal mechanism to expel him from the Party, if the members ask the NEC to do so, for the pre-conditions of Article 12.11 no longer apply.
So, in my view, the only way to expel him is via a disciplinary process – but the disciplinary process is a quasi-judicial process which must apply the law to the facts, and cannot have its decision pre-determined and prejudiced by the outcome of a popular opinion poll. So the whole members’ poll, in my opinion, is a waste of time and money. If the members ask the NEC to re-expel Nathan, and the NEC tries to do so, and he sues, in my view, he will be successful and the NEC will look really stupid (as, in relation to this issue, in my view, it already does).”
Sections 6 & 10 of Tomaz’s letter, much of it supporting your and Rob’s view I think, certainly make for entertaining (if that’s the right word!) reading.
Thanks, Howard – and I agree, this Nathan-Saga is certainly a reflection of the malaise in the national Party at that time.
As far as I’m concerned, this also illustrates why I’m so keen on having everything out in the open, not trying to hide things behind legalese reasoning.
I sat on the NEC for the period in question Howard. Nigel was out of step with the members in Wales. So was it the NEC, respecting the membership’s wishes, or the membership, who frustrated Nigel?
This is definitely a googly question Rob, so forgive if I play a straight bat and refer you to my reply to Viv.
May I ask you a question though as you may well know the answer:
What’s happening regarding the 2017 NEC elections?
Arriving early 2018, having being postponed as per rules so electronic voting etc. can be sorted out.
Rest assured, as a potential candidate, I am keeping VERY close tabs on this ?
No comments should be published without being identified. If unwilling to do that they should just ‘shut up’.
In Wales we have a difficult task in getting back to the position we once held.
In South Wales East at the next assembly election we will have the the only elected AM and that will be on the list, this is according to the Wales Governance Centre at Wales. University of Cardiff.
The election process is now in the hands of the assembly itself, don’t expect any new electoral changes to be kind to us?
Since May 2016 there has been a void in UKIP Wales leadership, allowing quite a number of our best campaigners to leave, these will be hard to replace.
If you spend half your life creating and putting this site together, you can call yourself editor then get to decide its rules. If you contribute once in a while, then when it comes to the site rules, you can “shut up” as you say.
Thank you, Graham, although in all honesty I must state that this site was not created half a lifetime ago – coming up to five years in 2018 – and most certainly was not created by me. Still, there are times when a week feels like a year in this job …
🙂
Seconded. Well said, Graham.
Regards.
What news of Mark Reckless who tried to return to the mother ship with his friend Carswell once they had accomplished their mission of infiltrating UKIP?
Reckless is sitting as independent with the Tories, who did not accept him back into the Tory party after his defection from UKIP, to which he had defected from the Tories.
Not well played at all by Reckless …
‘More time in Brussels’ – whatever for? There are no votes to be won there, it’s a waste of time and taxpayers’ money. The fight is HERE in the UK.
Welsh matters are best left to Welsh branches but it is pleasing that Nathan has been replaced. I hope he will now do a proper job for UKIP in Brussels.
I was never a fan of Tory converts, especially those with “history” but credit where it’s due, Hamilton does seem effective.
Delighted the double-jobbing boil is now lanced for the new year!
Good luck to Mandy ?