It’s deja-vu for Ken Wilson. For the third time he’s involved with a BMC Future Policy review. But he loves it.

After three years of financial deficits and rumblings of discontent from both individual members and the major clubs, our national body is undertaking a Future Policy review. This is a process where a few luckless souls are locked away and told to make a searching review of past and present, and attempt to fashion general policies to guide the BMC for next few years.

Do we need more or less insurance? Should we continue to publish guidebooks? Should the BMC be seeking to take on new tasks or consolidating frugally behind its necessary duties? How do we revitalize the Areas where there are many crags and access issues needing local support? What should be the main work areas? The BMC needs the answers to these types of the questions to enable it to make the key decisions for the future.

For me this is like a Groundhog Day. I took part in the review of the early 1970s under Alan Blackshaw when the move to Manchester was made and the process of challenging the certification policies of the training bodies was begun. The Groundhog emerged, sniffed the air, liked it and we had 10 years of reasonable governance.

In the early 1980s the icy winds of discontent were blowing again and under the Chairmanship of Wil Butler the process was a far less radical. Tightening and retrenchment was the order of the day then – trying to put some sort of brake on the never-ending pressure to expand. The Groundhog sniffed the air, emerged, but under protest.

In the late 90s we had a range of policies (some good, some more questionable) made “on the hoof” so to speak, with questionable judgement about their long-term wisdom. But now a new winter of discontent is back, subs are going up and there are rumblings of concern and a series of expensive and near disastrous “adventures”. I wake up again in the cold political steppes of future policy and stumble from meeting to meeting trying to unravel our seemingly perennial problems.

But what part does the “average” person have to play in this process? Most, quite sensibly, will wish to ignore tedious politics and just get out climbing. But conversely we now have a group of opinionated web-based activists champing on the bit about everything the BMC does, debating it ad nauseum on the ukclimbing web site – a process thus far exuding much heat but rather less light.

In the hope that there are those interested enough to contribute some genuine wisdom to the debate I have been charged with the task of provoking you into letting us know your views. A good example of this was provided recently when Lyndon Gill started bombarding me with emails saying that the BMC was in danger of commending policies that would result in club climbers and particularly university climbers needing to take a training course and get insurance cover before they could introduce others to climbing. Clearly this would mark an ominous advance of badges and testing into mainstream climbing.

So what is wrong with present policies? What should we abandon? What should be taken on board? What could we do better? What are we doing well? Are there any exciting new ideas that we should be considering? Or is the mandate merely to do the essential and do it better?

To give you a provocative sampler I have one “idea” that I am keenly advancing to anyone who will listen and may send some of you into apoplexy:

We now have the technology to build artificial cliffs and edges that look and feel like the real thing. There is no reason, given political and fund raising skill, why we cannot get some built in suitable cliff-starved but useful locations (such as near the southern end of the M1). Such cliffs could be established in the same manner that make natural cliffs so successful: in fine locations with nice views, facing the sun and with a no rules, no payment and a natural protection regime – a Burbage North near Milton Keynes, an Almscliff on the North Orbital, an Idwal Slabs in Oxfordshire – the possibilities are endless!

Others on the Future Policy Group have their plans as well. But what is your vision for the future? Let us know! The 10 area consultation meetings are proving very informative, but if you missed out then just use the web, John Horscroft is monitoring the BMC forums with a keen eye and reporting back from the front line.

If general themes emerge we will have to take note, and if there is some particular pearl of wisdom that is offered, be prepared to be dragged kicking and screaming to one of our meetings to expand on your idea. Who knows, you too might become enmeshed in the BMC and in thirty years time be groping through mid 21st century mountain problems in a continuing Groundhog Day of recurring themes. I bet you just can’t wait.

« Back