Keep politics out of the National Trust

IF every COUNTRY LIFE reader had voted in the recent National Trust ballot on hunting, the turnout would have quadrupled! As it was, most members showed themselves supremely indifferent to an issue they felt was no concern of theirs or of the Trust.

The result was that a gang of noisy troublemakers managed to get way less than 1% of the membership to vote to stop trail hunting on National Trust land. It was a pathetic performance characterised by unpleasant tactics, unfounded accusations and every possible attempt to mislead. Even so, it was only by a hair’s breadth that the 4.5 million members weren’t landed with the extremist agenda of a mere 28,000.

That outcome, so narrowly avoided, would have run counter to the whole ethos of the Trust, which holds land and buildings for us all and not for any one section of society—and particularly not for an unrepresentative gang of single-issue campaigners.

People have left their great houses and the land to support it, contributed to special efforts to preserve particular landscapes and entrusted pictures and furniture because they saw the Trust as a safe place in which sensible, public-spirited people could guard the nation’s heritage in perpetuity.

That specifically excludes the Trust from becoming the vehicle for particular views or trendy causes, however well meant. Unfortunately, the size and scale of the organisation makes it an attractive prize for every sort of pressure group.

The tactics employed follow a well-trodden path. First, publish a highly emotive, entirely one-sided description of an issue. Then, start a campaign on social media that suggests you have far greater support than you actually have and, finally, attempt to frighten those running the organisation you have targeted by claiming that they’re not representative of their members.

It was in this way that the extremists took over the RSPCA, which, as a result, no longer has its historic broad appeal and widespread support, but, riven by infighting, has become the instrument of the extremists’ agenda.

We must not allow the National Trust to be similarly used. These agitators rely on the fact that moderate, decent people join to have access to our national heritage and to support its continued protection. For the most part, these are not campaigners but doers and contributors. They expect the affairs of the Trust to be conducted in a seemly fashion, obeying the law and concentrating on its fundamental business. They don’t want it to take up causes that are properly the concern of others.

That makes the general run of members unwilling to take part in ‘politics’. It’s not what they joined for. The Trust is, therefore, vulnerable to small groups of motivated campaigners because the vast mass of members simply doesn’t vote.

No wonder that the Trust’s leadership was so concerned about it all recently. Their worries drove them to make entirely unnecessary changes in hunt-licensing arrangements, taking them far beyond what Parliament agreed should be the law. That makes it open season for every kind of campaign as the Trust has departed from the firm ground of upholding the law.

The Trust’s position should be simple: ‘We are entrusted with much of the nation’s heritage and that is the focus of our work. We take no sides on these controversial matters, but we obey the law.’ If people want trail-hunting banned, they must get onto Parliament to amend the Hunting Act 2004 and not suborn an organisation that has wholly different aims and purposes.

It’s vulnerable to campaigners because the vast mass of members simply doesn’t vote

Follow @agromenes on Twitter