... well, it's not independent boaters, that's for sure.
Results here (and candidate info still here).
So, we have 2 1/2 IWA people and one RBOA, I think it's fair to say?
A cynic would suggest it's a neat stitchup by someone in an upper floor office; by denying the IWA and RBOA seats on the council by default (list of 'nominated respresentatives' also here - WRG seems to be the only big directly canal association allowed to play), the IWA get an even bigger voice on the council, RBOA get their say (and so they should) and 'private boaters' get eff all. Diddly squat. As we expected, then.
I should make it clear I have nothing against the IWA, RBOA or anyone else. It's this travesty of 'representation'. Perhaps it was never going to work. It'll be like the NHS, about to be ripped apart by people with accounts at Harley St. In a couple of years, when we look back at when we didn't have to pay for a broken arm to be treated - or our licences weren't doubled overnight, say - they'll tell us we chose this, that we were complicit.
Actually, I'm far angrier about what they're doing to the NHS - that affects far, far more people in a much more important way. But it's all the same. We're f*cked.
Edit: see also Peter Underwood's post on the results suggesting all four represent the IWA. What's the point? I genuinely don't understand why they did this.
A hundred years or two - Next weekend I shall be celebrating a centenary, and a bicentenary
7 hours ago