It’s that time of year again when thoughts turn to the National Trust AGM, and voting for the people who will determine the Trust’s continuing direction. Do we vote for people who will conserve our history, add to our understanding and increase year by year the numbers who benefit from it, or will we vote for people who do not have the interests of the Trust, or the nation, at heart, but are only interested in exaggerating problems that they can continue to exploit?
By the latter I mean Restore Trust – of course. I will be voting once again for the Council’s recommended picks, as that is the best way of ensuring that the Trust remains in capable and reliable hands. I recommend that everyone else does the same.
I wrote last year about how the existence of Restore Trust has changed the way I vote. I reproduce it here.
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
Restore Trust has changed the way I vote, which is ultimately unhelpful for the long term robustness of the National Trust.
Several seats on the governing body come up for re-election every year. The council recommend those they think best. Up till now I have looked at all the candidates. I usually accepted most of the council's recommendations, but substituted one or two choices of new candidates who I thought would bring fresh thinking or fresh skills to the council.
I don't do that any longer. I accept the council's recommendations in their entirety. The danger of a Restore candidate getting in because of a council recommendation not getting votes is too great a risk.
I think that is a shame, but I will continue to do that as long as it thwarts Restore Trust's regressive, destructive, anti-democratic agenda.
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
And I have written previously about what Restore Trust is after.
