What the audience wants
Paul Wells discovers, somewhat to his chagrin, that what his readers want is analysis pieces of Prime Minister Harper.
What this really should do is encourage him to pen a sequel to his 2006 political book, “Right Side Up“.
He has a market open to him.
Update: Interesting point — more Liberal and NDP supporters want an election in 2011 than Conservative supporters.
In the online survey of a representative national sample of 1,000 Canadian adults, 49 per cent of respondents agree with holding a federal election next year while one third (34%) disagree with the idea.
Nearly three-in-five respondents who voted for the Conservative Party in the 2008 federal election (57%) do not want to see an election in 2011. Conversely, 58 per cent of people who voted for either the Liberal Party or the New Democratic Party (NDP) in 2008 do support an election.
Despite their personal opinions on the matter, a majority of Canadians (57%) feel that a federal election is likely in the New Year. One quarter (24%) think it is unlikely while one-in-five are not sure (19%).
This interests me because, well, I think Prime Minister Harper is in a pretty good position to survive the next election as prime minister.
Maybe the Liberals want a new leader?
I think Wells’s observation is fair – but should not be a surprise. Harper lives such an odd sort of life in relation to his personality and position that he is making himself a curiosity in both senses of the word.
Isn’t it merely an exercise in tautology?
Wells is a undoubtedly a very bright guy, but his whole punditry shtick can be summed up as “Look at the dumb plan these politicians have cooked up! Ha ha!”
Ergo, if one likes reading Wells, one will want more of the same.
I have never read Wells that way but, to be fair to you Chris, I am not anywhere near a regular reader. I have taken him to be a little bit activist as with the disclosure of documents but for the most part trying to figure out the meaning of the current political era. Am I honestly missing that he is not all that neutral?
I think you have misconstrued my meaning, slightly. Wells’ I’m-brighter-than-those-dumb-pols posturing is bipartisan (or multi-partisan) as far as I can tell. He focuses mostly on the government of the day—which is fine—and occasionally broadens his horizons to the opposition.
On one or two issues that approach might be well-deserved, but in the long run I don’t find it interesting (although many do, to be sure). As a habitual rhetorical crutch it’s just not that compelling, at least not for anyone who isn’t competing to assume the mantle of Jon Stewart.
Actually, I never got that vibe off Wells re PM Harper.
The way I see it, he’s one of the few journalists who pulls coherent narratives out about what Harper’s up to — that’s why I value his stuff.
Sent from my iPad
I imagine, then, that you must not be tuning in to many of his “Rights and Democracy” hobbyhorse pieces? They have never been anything but canned snark.
Touché.
That’s Wells’s blind spot — he actually thinks that a group called “Rights and Democracy” is about rights and democracy.
Conservatives know better — we know the left.
Sent from my iPhone