In March this year, the BBC’s director general, Tim Davie, gave a speech on the BBC’s future. He said unbalanced, unfair and overtly politicised attacks on institutions eroded the essence of what made Britain so globally admired. He was right. The increasing number of attacks on our institutions poses a risk to us all – at home as well as overseas. Strong, independent institutions are essential to functioning democracies. Remaining impartial allows them to put the public interest above political and business interests, take a long-term view of complex issues, and make decisions that benefit society as a whole. Their neutrality allows workers to apply expertise without fear of reprisal or coercion. And they act as roadblocks to extremism.
Too often, charities, public bodies and universities are becoming proxies in other people’s fights, and targets in other people’s schemes. It’s part of a populist approach: choose a well-known institution and level divisive accusations at it, and you can surprise people and grab headlines. The National Trust, where I work, will be 130 years old in January next year. Nearly 10% of the UK’s population are signed-up, paying members. It’s been called a peculiarly British miracle. It’s been achieved through cooperation towards a common goal – securing hundreds of miles of coast and countryside, nature reserves, historic landscapes and buildings, and priceless treasures, in perpetuity, for the benefit of the entire country.
But ideological attacks detract from the importance of our work. In 2021, a private company was set up to run paid-for campaigns to get its own often “anti-woke” candidates on to the National Trust’s governing council. Parts of the media have been relentless in publishing a steady stream of stories about alleged problems with the trust. If you’ve had half an eye on the media, you may have read that we’ve banned mushrooms, secretly made our scones “woke”, cancelled Christmas and, my personal favourite, presided over a “woke-row deer park’s kinky dogging shame”. Some headlines are benign and entertaining, even though they’re false. But it’s not funny. False stories are damaging. The public needs to be able to believe what they read about the institutions that serve them. The National Trust deals with sensitive, symbolic issues and must be open to public scrutiny, if only so we can be held to account when we make genuine errors, as will happen with all institutions.
Mary Beard recently said that when organisations such as the National Trust get attacked, they’re doing their job. It’s true – part of our job has always been helping the public safely settle questions and debates. From decades of presiding over which beaches can and cannot be used by nudists, to where it’s inappropriate to store nuclear waste, the trust has always been home to some argy-bargy. It’s always been a “big tent”. But the rise of populism, coupled with a growing ecosystem of opaque thinktanks, lobby groups and internet campaigners, means the rows we are pulled into are no longer about settling debates. They’re polarising and divisive.
So how does an institution deal with all this? We’ve had to be open and direct about what’s behind untrue stories wherever possible. We’ve answered all media questions, and consistently sought corrections. We’ve been careful not to use major platforms for countering disinformation – no one travels to our Instagram to see rebuttals of culture-war stories. We’ve spoken to other institutions and charities about what’s happening. We don’t want this to be our job, but sometimes it is.
Most importantly, we have listened. Just because you’re being unfairly treated by some, it doesn’t mean everyone who disagrees with you is wrong, or is part of a conspiracy. People have every right to their opinions. Sometimes we are wrong and change our approach; sometimes we need to respectfully disagree. Our director general is fierce in her insistence that everyone will be heard, and everyone must be served by the broader societal benefit that the charity delivers. In a previous role she was a cultural leader in Belfast, seeing first-hand the dangers of polarisation around culture and identity.
Independent research has shown that as attacks on the National Trust have increased, so has public trust in it. Donations have risen. Vocal supporters have emerged from all walks of life. Our polling shows the trust is held in equally high esteem by Labour and Tory voters. Unlike most institutions, our members have democratic voting rights. Since the attacks ramped up, voter turnout for our AGM is breaking records each year.
Polarisation is dangerous, and even the most cash-strapped organisations need to pay attention to the risks. They cannot afford to be distracted, intimidated or occupied by single-interest groups. Our institutions are only as strong as the coalitions around them. While recent times have proven tough and we would rather focus our resources on conservation work, it is heartening that the result has been more people getting involved in the National Trust, supporting us and donating money.
Public participation is a central aim of organisations like the National Trust, whose missions are so broad that they need a very broad base of people involved. In a diverse country facing big challenges, it’s crucial that all generations and all communities can take part. The power and riches held in UK institutions belong to everyone, so public involvement is worth fighting for.
Celia Richardson is director of communications and marketing at the National Trust