Why is Ms Braverman – who was replaced by Rishi Sunak – branded a disaster by the BBC and other critics of the government? To hear them, you’d think her transgressions – not Putin’s war and energy and grain blockades, not inflation – were the big news. You’d think the migrant overcrowding in Manston was the result of her personal inhumanity rather than the scale of the immigration problem she wants to tackle. It is striking that this Home Secretary, like Priti Patel before her, is so callous. Perhaps the mindset of mass immigration enthusiasts is deeply offended when women of Indian heritage have their say. Ms. Braverman does think otherwise. Yes, he was home secretary twice, but only for a few weeks. Her opponents are trying to stop her from implementing the policies she wants. There is also a shift of blame. Policy is, rightly, the responsibility of ministers, but when the practicalities of immigration have been so poorly implemented for so long, can’t that reflect badly on Home Office officials? Much easier than fixing things is to leak. Lobby correspondents love a reboot of the Westminster village’s favorite blood sport – sacking a minister. Yesterday morning on Radio 4, the BBC’s Nick Eardley did his usual ‘Questions don’t go away’ routine. Of course, it’s not: his tribe will make sure of it, thus marking the anniversary of their general manager’s great effort at impartiality. Invoking “security” against ministers is slightly sinister. It also featured in Sunday’s story that “spy chiefs”, concerned about Mrs Truss’ alleged careless use of her personal mobile phone when she was foreign secretary, want to restrict ministers from using government phones. The excuse is wiretapping by Putin’s friends. The Russian regime is certainly a security threat. But throughout the modern world, quick, informal communication depends on WhatsApp and the like. If ministers were forced to abandon their own devices, they would be at a huge disadvantage. Besides, who says government phones are necessarily more secure? “Security” is the excuse, but what officials are really after is control. According to our system, no minister is responsible for matters of this kind. The most secretive part of the state should not exercise such control over the people elected to run it. The old IRA myth of Britain being run by “insurers” is becoming dangerously true.
Time for the National Trust to restore our trust in it
The National Trust AGM is in Bath on Saturday. The Trust is making strong efforts to fight Restore Trust, the movement of members unhappy with its recent direction. In yesterday’s Guardian, which cites the National Trust, the Restore Trust was accused of supporting two resolutions at the AGM, one against rewilding and the other against the Trust’s participation in Pride marches. The claim made a good headline. It was completely untrue. Restore Trust does not support any analysis. His two decisions focus the fire on how the Trust operates. One is trying to get rid of the strange system by which the chairman can automatically invoke proxy votes of the members without directly asking for them. He can – and does – use them to overcome member challenges to management. The other would create an independent ombudsman to deal with complaints from members, staff and volunteers. The Trust’s spokesman says: “We have a long, proud tradition of openness and sound democratic process underpinning our government.” Unfortunately, this is the opposite of the truth. I wish National Trust bosses would stop seeing its members as the enemy. It is the people who love the heritage that it is supposed to take care of. Meanwhile, the National Trust’s chief curator, Dr Sally-Anne Huxtable, has been busy running a ‘Decolonising Art History workshop’, rather than curating.
Halloween celebrations in simpler times
Yesterday was Halloween. Being a Hallowe’en baby, I always loved this night. When I was a boy, American Trick-or-Treat had not made it to Britain. Myths circulated among us that American children were given candy by psychopaths who had hidden razor blades. My childhood birthday parties combined October 31st pumpkin carvings with November 5th fireworks, bonfires, and “Remember, memory” magic. In those days, kids could buy fireworks over the counter. My primary school friends and I used to collect big piles of batting, light it and throw it at foot height into the crowds at the famous Sussex village bonfires. Screams of delight followed. If you threw the hit while it was just glowing, as opposed to bubbling, you were a bib. The globalization of Hallowe’en, however, is a bit of a problem. Unanchored by any cultural connection, it has now become a giant exercise in mass fear. I wonder if this contributed to the tragic crash in South Korea on Saturday night that killed over 150 people. Those Christians who say Hallowe’en is satanic are being overly literal. It is, in principle, harmless. But it would help if more people knew the context. Hallowe’en is short for All Hallows’ Eve, that is, the eve of the day that commemorates all holy men, that is, the eve of today’s All Hallows’ Day. Tomorrow is All Souls’ Day. Take the three days together and you will have the right balance.