Reform UK teenager elected leader of Warwickshire County Council
Cllr George Finch was formally elected as the leader of Warwickshire County Council on Tuesday, 22 July.
He will now oversee a local authority with £1.5bn of assets and a revenue budget of around £500m.
Cllr Finch, who is from Nuneaton, represents the Bedworth Central ward. He had been selected as interim council leader after Cllr Rob Howard stepped down from his post just 41 days into the job.
In a statement, the outgoing leader cited "health challenges" and said it was a "very difficult decision" but he would continue to work as a county councillor.
The Liberal Democrats nominated their group leader, Jerry Roodhouse, to lead the council. He heads the second-largest group.
One Liberal Democrat councillor expressed frustration, saying residents were 'horrified' that the Reform UK council had not presented an agenda and was instead 'posturing" about what flag flies over the council offices, rather than addressing the real issues affecting people's lives.
Reform UK councillors backed Cllr Finch, saying they had only been in charge of the council for two months and were not rushing to announce on 'policy, policy, policy.'
One Reform UK councillor said: 'We've come in from scratch and we're not going to make decisions on day one. When we are ready, you will get the policies.'
At one point, Cllr Finch struggled to vote for himself after his microphone failed to work.
The Conservatives put forward their leader, Adrian Warwick. One of his councillors criticised Reform UK, saying they had 'retired from the cricket match as soon as they were elected.'
He added: 'This is not a moment for experimentation. It is one for experienced leadership.'
The Green Party leader nominated himself, acknowledging the complex political maths in the chamber. 'This isn't a game,' he said, also quoting Gandalf from The Lord of the Rings and calling for a unitary caretaker administration with seats for all parties.
After the first round of voting, no one received an overall majority. Cllr Finch led with 23 votes, followed by Cllr Roodhouse with 16 votes.
Cllr Warwick received 9 votes and the Green Party leader, Cllr Chilvers, received 7 votes and was eliminated.
After a second round of voting, both Cllr Finch and Cllr Roodhouse were tied on 23 votes. Cllr Warwick was eliminated.
Cllr Finch won on the vote of the chair, who is also a Reform councillor.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
New polling shows Reform is winning over Britain's Christians
When we look at how people vote in elections and why they choose certain parties, analysis often focuses on age, education, location or socioeconomic status. Less discussed in Britain is religion. But close to two-thirds of its adults are still religious – expressing either a religious identity, holding religious beliefs, or taking part in religious activities. For the one-in-three adults in Britain who are Christian, this identity remains an important influence on their political behaviour. New polling, published here for the first time, shows how Reform UK is disrupting our previous understanding of how Christians vote in British elections. The relationship between Britain's Christian communities and the major political parties goes back centuries. The Conservative party has been very close to English Anglicanism since its emergence in the mid-19th century. Catholics and free-church Protestants (such as Baptists and Methodists) have tended towards the Labour and Liberal/Liberal Democrat parties. Even as Britain has become more secular, these relationships have persisted. Anglicans, for example, have tended to vote Conservative even when the party was in dire straits. In the 2024 election, 39% of Anglicans voted Tory even as the party's national vote share fell to 24%. Since the 1980s and particularly in elections since 2015, however, we have started to see changes to the Christian vote. The traditional Catholic attachment to Labour has deteriorated, as has Labour's appeal to other Christian communities such as Baptists, Methodists and Presbyterians. Instead, driven by the rising salience of social values (attitudes towards immigration, social change and national identity) as a determinant of political support, the socially conservative leanings of some Christians of all stripes has led to increased support for the Conservatives. And those who traditionally did so – the Anglicans – have become even more supportive. The result has been a steady coalescing of the Christian vote behind the Conservatives. But now, new polling by YouGov (on June 23-24 2025) for the University of Exeter reveals that this realignment is being disrupted by the growing popularity of Reform UK. Instead of asking who people would vote for tomorrow, a nationally representative sample of 2,284 adults was asked how likely they were to ever vote for each major party, on a scale from zero (very unlikely) to ten (very likely). While not the same as a direct question about how someone would vote in an election, the likelihood question provides a much richer measure of the strength of their support for all of the major parties. Among Anglicans, Labour remains deeply unpopular: over half gave the party a 0. In contrast, the Conservatives still enjoy strong support among Anglicans, with 35% giving them a vote likelihood of seven or higher – the kind of support associated with voting for the party in an election. Reform, however, has caught up. Despite only 15% of Anglicans voting Reform in 2024, 38% now rate their likelihood of voting for the party as high. That's the same as the proportion who are strongly opposed to Reform – showing that while the party polarises Anglicans more than the Conservatives, Reform could win as much Anglican support as the Tories in an election. Catholics show a similar trend. Labour's traditional support is eroding: 40% of Catholics said they had zero likelihood of voting Labour, while 29% are strong supporters. As with Conservatives for the Anglican vote, Reform is almost level-pegging with Labour for the Catholic vote at 28%. It has even supplanted the Conservatives, of whom 22% of Catholics are strong supporters. It is not yet clear why this is happening. The distinction of Christian (and non-Christian) voting patterns is not an artefact of age – there are many studies that prove this is the case. It may be that Reform's stances on issues such as immigration resonate with Christians' concerns to the extent that they are willing to set aside their historic party loyalties. Or it may be that Christians are as prone as other British voters to turn to Reform out of frustration with the performances of Labour and the Conservatives in office. Swing voters and party competition This data also shows the extent to which voters' support for parties overlaps or is exclusive. In other words, which voters have a high vote likelihood for only one party (and so are likely committed to backing that party in an election), which do not have such high likelihoods for any party (and so will probably not vote at all), and which have similarly high likelihoods for more than one party (effectively swing voters, persuadable one way or the other). Among the religiously unaffiliated, 29% aren't strong supporters of any party. For Catholics, it's 26%. Anglicans are more politically anchored, however, with only 20% in this category. While traditionally, we would have expected this to reflect Anglicans' greater tendency to support the Tories, only 17% of Anglicans are strong supporters of only that party, compared with 21% who are firmly behind Reform. These aren't swing voters; they've switched sides. A further 12% of Anglicans have high vote likelihoods for both the Tories and Reform. These are swing voters that the two parties could realistically expect to win over. Catholics are even more fragmented. Only 13% are strong supporters of Labour alone, along with 12% and 17% who are strong supporters of the Conservatives and Reform alone, respectively. Few Catholics are torn between Labour and the other parties, but 5% are swing voters between the Conservatives and Reform: the Tories' gradual winning over of Catholics over the last 50 years is also being challenged by the appeal of Reform. The party has provided a socially conservative alternative to the Conservatives, with the result that the Christian vote has become more fragmented. The Tories are no longer the main beneficiaries of Labour's loss of its traditional Catholic vote. In addition, Reform is as popular as the Conservatives among Anglicans, and as popular as Labour among Catholics. This suggests it is appealing across the traditional denominational divide more successfully than either of the major parties. If there is to be a single party that attracts the bulk of Britain's Christian support, at this point it is far more likely to be Reform than anyone else.
South Wales Argus
2 hours ago
- South Wales Argus
Tories would ban doctors' strikes, Badenoch says
The Tory leader said that her party would introduce primary legislation to block medics from taking widespread industrial action, placing the same restrictions on them that apply to police officers and soldiers. Thousands of resident doctors, previously known as junior doctors, began a five-day walkout on Friday after relations between the Government and British Medical Association (BMA) soured over a dispute about pay. Health Secretary Wes Streeting has said the union will not be allowed to 'hold the country to ransom' after receiving a 28.9% pay award over the last three years, the highest across the public sector. The BMA says, despite this uplift, pay for resident doctors has declined by a fifth since 2008 once inflation is taken into account. NHS resident doctors outside Bristol Royal Infirmary (Ben Birchall/PA) On Saturday, the Conservatives said they would reintroduce minimum service level requirements, which were brought in by the previous government and scrapped by Labour, across the health service. Mrs Badenoch said: 'The BMA has become militant, these strikes are going too far, and it is time for action. 'Doctors do incredibly important work. 'Medicine is a vocation, not just a job. 'That is why in government we offered a fair deal that supported doctors, but protected taxpayers too.' She said the Tories were 'making an offer in the national interest, we will work with the Government to face down the BMA to help protect patients and the NHS.' Patients have been urged to attend appointments unless told otherwise while the action is ongoing, with NHS England saying hospitals are aiming to reschedule any cancellations due to strikes within two weeks. Mr Streeting has warned of a challenging few days for the health service but said 'we are doing everything we can to minimise' harm.
Telegraph
2 hours ago
- Telegraph
Kemi is right. We must clip the BMA's wings
Kemi Badenoch's announcement that the Conservatives would ban strikes by doctors represents a clear break with the consensus of the recent past. It is a determined response both to the Government's slow progress with NHS reform and to the Employment Rights Bill, which will make it much easier for unions to call damaging public sector strikes. At present the 'right to strike' – formally an immunity, dating from 1906, from being sued for breach of contract – is almost universal amongst UK employees. The only significant exceptions are the Armed Forces, the police and prison officers. The military are banned from industrial action in every country in the world, and police strikes have been banned here since 1919. Prison officers have at various times had the freedom to strike, but since the 2008 Criminal Justice and Immigration Act, brought in by the last Labour government as it happens, that right has been removed. Many countries have wider restrictions on strikes. Civil servants, university staff and many teachers are banned from striking in Germany, for example. Air traffic controllers, fire and rescue workers can't withdraw labour in Czechia. No federal employee can strike in the US, or even belong to a union which asserts the right to strike. We know that the current Government has made a fetish of international human rights legislation, but the International Labor Organization – to which we are signed up – specifically permits strike bans in 'those services whose interruption would endanger the life, personal safety or health' of the population. This would certainly seem to include our militant resident doctors. In practice complete bans on striking by doctors – not always and everywhere the most militant of unionists, to be fair – are confined to authoritarian countries such as Saudi Arabia and China. But many more liberal jurisdictions place considerable constraints on the right to strike. In some US states – including New York, Florida and Texas – doctors in public hospitals cannot strike. The same applies in several Australian states, while any industrial action in other states must go through complicated Fair Work Commission procedures. Where doctors' strikes are permitted there are usually requirements for notice and for minimum service levels – the latter is being abolished here by the Employment Rights Bill. In Canada, doctors in some provinces may be obliged to submit to binding arbitration. Mrs Badenoch justifies her headline-grabbing proposal by pointing to the frequency of resident doctors' strikes and their intransigence in demanding another extraordinary pay settlement despite the government stuffing their mouths with gold last time round. 'The BMA is out of control' she claims. That may also be true of some other militant unions – the RMT is gearing up for more action on our newly-nationalised railways, for example – but they do not generally threaten lives. I rather doubt that a new Conservative government would completely ban doctors' strikes, an action which would prompt massive opposition from the trade union movement as a whole and no doubt provoke the now-inevitable explosion of lawfare. But it would certainly be possible to clip the BMA's wings by tightening ballot requirements and reintroducing the power to impose binding arbitration, something which British governments used in the past. More important, however, would be reform to break up the monolithic structure of the NHS. This would have the side-effect of introducing a genuine market for the services of doctors rather than the current bilateral monopoly. Of course, the prospect of a Conservative government in the near future seems as likely as snow in August. Nevertheless Kemi Badenoch has performed a useful service in opening up debate about the future conduct of industrial relations in the health service, while putting Keir Starmer and Wes Streeting firmly on the spot. Reform should join in the action: we have yet to hear anything of significance about their position on the doctors' strike. Labour needs to abandon its ineffectual bleating about the moral responsibilities of doctors and get tough with these strikers, who do not have massive public backing: nobody is bashing pans outside their doors these days. Another capitulation to the demands of the BMA will only produce knock-on demands from other NHS workers, threatening both the prospects for genuine health reforms and the country's dire fiscal position.
