Linkblogging For 26/04/10

Again, apologies to my foreign readers for so much of the current content being political. It’s only going to last until Thursday of next week, when the election happens, though. I promise to spend the whole next four years after that just talking about Batman.

UK Election Trend look at the different possibilities and conclude a Lib/Lab coalition is still most likely, while the Independent says Clegg has ‘hinted he could work with Labour’. James Graham, in Comment Is Free, says the same. Now will you all PLEASE stop screaming about how Clegg is Cameron’s bestest ever friend?

A wonderful thing here – the entrants into a competition for text adventure (‘interactive fiction’) games that had to be written in a total of 140 characters or fewer (except for whitespace). Most are written in Inform 7, but some are in perl, or even sed or awk, and all are playable…

Jim Jepps (a Green) talks about members of other parties he admires – Lib Dems, Labour and far left.

The Honorable Lady Mark wonders which ‘home’ the Bastard Nazi Party want him to go to.

And Grant Morrison talks about the return of Bruce Wayne

This entry was posted in comics, linkblogging, politics and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Linkblogging For 26/04/10

  1. jennie says:

    odd. I have spent most of the day telling people how unlikely a lib/lab pact is, but then I’m one of the people who would leave the party without a second’s hesitation were it to happen.

    • Andrew Hickey says:

      I don’t think a coalition with *either* is likely at all. Personally, I wouldn’t leave the party were Labour to be *junior* partner in a *Lib Dem-led* coalition, but think that both main parties are too tainted for us to support (see earlier post…)

  2. Have you read any of the election analysis that’s been on [url=]FiveThirtyEight[/url]? While the site’s predominantly focused on American politics, I’ve found the UK coverage there an interesting contrast. However, I’ve wondered if there’s something missing in the analysis, given that it is an American site.

    • Andrew Hickey says:

      That one got spam-trapped, sorry for the delay in getting it up here.
      No, I’ve not really looked at 538, because as you say it’s US-based – and frankly our system is so byzantine that even quite informed British people get it wrong (as I proved the other day when I got corrected about the systems used to elect the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly).
      Looking through it, at a quick scan it looks more-or-less OK, though a bit convinced of the staggering newness of observations that are actually well-known over here. It certainly doesn’t look unreliable, put it that way…

Comments are closed.