A truly radical National Trust would return to its founding principles
What a wonderful job, what an impossible job. The person who got it is Hilary Mcgrady, the new director-general of the National Trust. Each of the two preceding directors-general – Dame Fiona Reynolds and Dame Helen Ghosh – succeeded in infuriating previously loyal supporters. Mcgrady says that she wants to be “radical”. Does that mean more anguish?
It needn’t. Out with political correctness. Out with bean bags. Let’s go back to the ideals of the founding fathers. They were philanthropists, intent on improving the lot of the working poor. That was radical. But they weren’t pushovers. (The word “working” was important; they had no time for malingerers.) They addressed issues of the day, pragmatically. When, in 1896, the year after the Trust was established, one of them heard about a Wealden cottage in Sussex, which was falling down, they stepped in and bought it. That was radical, by the standards of the time. Later, the Trust began to take into its care some of the rural palaces that their aristocratic owners could no longer afford to keep up. Radical again.
What does radical mean now? A default position of the Trust – echoed by Mcgrady – is that it must reach out to people who aren’t members. Why? Oughtn’t it to begin with the loyal folk who already belong, and have done, on average, for many years? Today, to judge from the banal tone of the website, the Trust has abandoned the high-mindedness of its founders. A really radical agenda would reclaim some of the old seriousness of purpose. It owns fabulous collections, yet the standards of display are sometimes amateur. No, the Trust doesn’t have many properties in towns and cities. But why should it? Its role isn’t to collect a set of properties, filling gaps on the stamp album principle. It provides a refuge of last resort for countryside and heritage that would otherwise disappear.
Today, towns and cities are infinitely better to live in than they were a century ago. They’re healthier, cleaner; the dark Satanic Mills have gone. It might be nice if town dwellers visited the countryside more often, but there’s a different priority. I suspect the founders of the National Trust would be appalled to discover how little many people – particularly youngsters – know about the history of their country. Through its varied portfolio, a radical National Trust would make education a priority. It should do this in conjunction with neighbouring historic properties. As a huge charity, it should help others in the sector – the struggling owners of private stately homes – not crush them with its marketing might. Too radical?
Rather than obsessing with the urban agenda, a radical Trust should make the most of its position as an enlightened landowner. Britain’s trees are dying; we’re all losers when another arboreal disease comes in. The Government’s response has been pathetic. Come on, National Trust, mobilise those five million members. Make the government take action.