Who is Reform's George Finch? The teenager now in charge of a multi-million pound council budget
Alarm has been raised after a 19-year-old Reform politician was put in charge of a cash-strapped council - and immediately agreed to splash £150,000 on advisors.
George Finch was appointed at the helm of Warwickshire County Council after his predecessor quit having been in post for 41 days. Voters voiced concern about giving a teenager with no relevant experience so much power - particularly after he started a public spat over a Pride flag at the council.
Labour MP Preet Gill said: "This is not work experience." Mr Finch, who served as interim council leader before his hotly-contested appointment, hit the headlines in June when he demanded a Progress Pride flag - showing support for the LGBTQ+ community - was removed.
The council's chief executive, Monica Fogarty, refused to do so. The row prompted Nigel Farage to attack the public servant, suggesting she "should look for a new job".
Following Mr Finch's appointment at a meeting picketed by protesters, Warwickshire's Reform group was accused of hypocrisy after agreeing to hire political advisors. This was despite pledging to cut wasteful spending.
The council, which has an overall budget of £2billion currently faces an £87million defecit. Lib Dem councillor George Cowcher told The Guardian: 'These proposals are all about spending some money so they can have a chum in their group and I think that is not particularly helpful given the financial state of this council."
And the Green Party's Sam Jones said: 'Reform have had a sniff of power, they're making it so clear that they never cared a jot for the will of their supporters. No to overpaid, unelected bureaucrats before the election, but yes to up to £150,000 of unfunded spending on political assistants now the campaigning is over.'
Mr Finch, who told the BBC he had wanted to be a teacher but was put off by "socialist wokeism", said the leaders of all three big parties on the council - Reform, the Tories and the Lib Dems - would get a political assistant. This was because council officers had not shown enough imagination in past years, he claimed.
He hit out at those anxious about his young age, saying: "All I see is age… I don't care about my age. Would people be questioning if there was a 70-year-old at the helm? Probably not.
" Joe Biden, Donald Trump, presidents that are older – no-one questions it. But they're questioning someone who is 19."
Ms Gill said voters in Warwickshire "frankly deserve better'. 'This is not work experience,' she told the BBC. 'This is not about learning on the job.'
His appointment drew a mixed reaction from locals. One woman told Channel 4 news it was "ridiculous". She said: "Too young, no experience, big budget to deal with, a wide range of issues to cover. I just can't see that he would have the experience to do it."
Another said: "I think 19-year-olds can be supported. They can be chaperoned and shepherded in those roles. But I think that also takes resources as well. Have we got the time and the money for that in this country? I don't think we have."
However not everyone was against it. One young woman told the broadcaster: "I think it's good. I think we need new people to lead and I think it's going to be great for the country and the council."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mirror
10 minutes ago
- Daily Mirror
Nigel Farage faces probe by Parliament's standards watchdog over 'interests'
Nigel Farage is being investigated by Parliament's standards watchdog, it has been confirmed. Daniel Greenberg, the parliamentary standards commissioner, has launched an inquiry into the Reform leader over a "registration of interest'. - This is a breaking news story. Follow us on
The National
33 minutes ago
- The National
Why did Glasgow City Council let the far-right march through the city?
ON Saturday afternoon, the people of Glasgow chased off a group of extreme far-right demonstrators marching on our streets. I don't say that flippantly; that is exactly what happened. I saw it first-hand. But it should never have been left to the people to sort out when instruments of the state (namely, Police Scotland and Glasgow City Council) have the powers to stop it. I've seen a lot of public comment about the calls to ban Ukip's "mass deportations" rallies and there is a really interesting divide in the commentary. The key opposition to supporting these calls comes from protecting the right to free speech so I suppose that's probably the best place to begin. READ MORE: Keir Starmer commits to recognising Palestinian state after pressure In the UK, we absolutely have the right to free expression but with every right comes a responsibility and in this circumstance, your responsibility is not to incite violence. Inciting violence is a crime. Local authorities have the ability to bring a prohibition order on the grounds of public safety, public order and the placing of excessive burden on the police. I believe all of these were in play last Saturday and its under these grounds that the Ukip march should have been prohibited. Of course, I raised this directly with the council senior officers who took a different view. Their view is that their required consultation with Police Scotland means that only Police Scotland can raise these concerns which they did not, otherwise, their hands are tied. Regardless of which of the two are at fault for allowing the march to go ahead, the resultant outcome is that normal Glaswegians had to step up and stop this far-right march from taking place. Dan Hutchison speaks at a Greens event (Image: Christian Gamauf) While I entirely disagree with the concept that migrants aren't welcome, I accept that debate around whether to allow migrants to enter the UK and in what number is fair comment. It will be and is always robustly challenged. What I don't think it is fair comment to call for mass deportations. Mass deportations is not just sending troublemakers home or taking a tough stance on migrants breaking the law. Mass deportations, as defined by disgraced ex-Reform MP Rupert Lowe's motion from April on the matter, is deporting one million of our friends, family and neighbours. That's just under one in 70 people in this country that they want to seize, detain and deport. There is no way to succeed in mass deportations without taking the approach of ICE in America, but on steroids. The mass deportation of one million of our friends, families and neighbours people from this country would cause widespread violence on our streets and would benefit no one but the rich and powerful. And those calling for mass deportations aren't looking to do this without violence. Last month saw the latest race riots on these islands over in Ballymena, which resulted in over 100 injuries and the expulsion of two-thirds of the local Roma community. With both the Northern Irish First Minister Michelle O'Neill and the PSNI Chief Constable Jon Boutcher agreeing that this violence was racism in action. READ MORE: Labour respond as 400k back petition for repeal of Online Safety Act The far-right, including fascists, have united on a platform to scapegoat migrants at every possible turn and are trying to turn communities against each other. But the problem isn't migrants, the problem is greed. Greed from our corporate class and from our liberal politicians. For decades now we have watched as our politicians have sold off assets like a fire sale. Making dodgy backroom deals with their friends in business, some even taking a wage to advise how to fleece the state, whilst being the ones elected to protect it. And it's the same snake oil salesmen that are selling you the "migrants are a problem" line that are filling their pockets from the millionaires and billionaires who benefit from us fighting amongst ourselves. That's why the far-right weren't allowed to goosestep through our city, why we had to chase them off and why we will always stand as a community and not sell out to greed.
Spectator
39 minutes ago
- Spectator
The Online Safety Act and the Left's ‘ancient' institutions
After Reform promised to repeal the Online Safety Act, it didn't take long for Labour to defend internet censorship. 'And get rid of child protections online? Madness,' Labour MP Chris Bryant tweeted. 'Why would anyone want to grant strangers and paedophiles unfettered online access to children?' asked Mike Tapp. Science Minister Peter Kyle went one step further, declaring that anyone opposing the Online Safety Act – including Reform leader Nigel Farage – is 'on the side of Jimmy Savile'. Labour's latest attack ad reads: 'Farage's Reform party would scrap laws keeping children safe online'. The actions of government ministers over the past few days provide a masterclass in left-wing institution shrine-making. Yes, it might seem absurd that the government is treating a week-old policy like a sacred cow, the abolition of which is completely unimaginable. But this is a strategy ripped out of the progressive playbook. The same approach has been taken to the Human Rights Act, Ofcom, the Office for Budget Responsibility and the Supreme Court. We live in a world of Blairite institutions treated as ancient pillars of society. On Sky News, Kyle added that Farage was 'on the side of turning the clock back to the time when strange adults can get in touch via messaging apps with children'. How dare Farage try to turn back the tide of progress like this, returning the UK to the dystopian hellscape of… last week? If Labour are to be believed, the internet before 25 July 2025 – when the act's child safety duties came into force – was a dangerous and terrifying place in which children were constantly at risk of predation. It's completely safe now, though. The fact that the greatest safeguarding scandal of the 21st century – the mass grooming and rape of our children – happened mostly offline seems to have passed the government by. Here's how it works. Step one: diagnose a real problem and propose an institution or law that may do something in a roundabout way to address it. The Online Safety Act latched on to very real fears that children were accessing hardcore pornography and self-harm sites online. Martyn's Law, legislation seeking to improve protective security and organisational preparedness in event venues, responded to the horrors of the Manchester Arena terror attack in 2017. The Human Rights Act of 1998 emerged from a good-natured desire to 'bring rights home'. Nobody could ever object to the prohibition of slavery or torture. It all seemed very reasonable at the time. Step two: give your newly created solution wide-reaching powers that go far beyond the scope of the problem you sought to solve. Consult every 'stakeholder' on the books and add in amendments seeking to cover a whole host of new issues. Quickly, the Online Safety Act became an attempt to age-restrict most of the internet, including 'content relating to': sexual exploitation, illegal immigration and people smuggling, and fraud. Yes, 16-year-olds will soon have the right to vote – but not to watch some speeches in Parliament. Attempts to insulate venues from the threat posed by terrorism left small event organisers with hours of paperwork and online training in order to hold even tiny events unlikely ever to have been the target of an attack. The Human Rights Act became a vehicle for criminals to stay in the country. Finally, once your institution has spiralled completely out of control, object to any and all criticism on the grounds that the world we lived in before was a cruel and dangerous place. Never engage with the realities of the past. Robert Jenrick's campaign for Britain to leave the European Court of Human Rights and abolish the Human Rights Act was met with shock from campaigners. Those who support him are accused of trying to take away human rights – of trying to remove 'the fundamental universal rights we have as all human beings'. Ushering in a world where no one can have a free trial or a family life. Those on the left refuse to engage with the fact that, before 1998 when the act was introduced, Britain was clearly not an authoritarian state. Indeed, freedom of speech was undoubtedly better back then. The same case is made for the Supreme Court, which only came into existence in 2009, and the Equality Act of 2010. Before this, we are meant to believe that the ordinary person was suffering day to day at the hands of evil, woman-hating employers and parliamentary dictators. The same goes for the Office for Budget Responsibility – a creation of Cameron's 2010 government, and one which the Chancellor Rachel Reeves is determined to hand even more power to. Was the Treasury completely out of control before they weighed in with their forecasts? Is a 15-year-old institution that's overseen consistently rising government debt truly beyond reproach? Was the press really much worse before Ipso, the press regulator, was established in 2014? If anything, its existence has made it harder for the press to report on contentious topics, such as the gender debate. There was a world before the turn of the millennium. Britain is held together by the fundamentals of its democratic norms; by its truly ancient institutions: common law, democracy and parliamentary sovereignty have all done great things to protect the individual. The institutions and policies of the last decade have hindered, not helped, this project. Learn from the derangement of the conversation about the Online Safety Act. Don't fall for the progressive guidebook next time they get it out.
