On turf wars

Jeffrey Simpson's lament on the state of Canadian politics is well worth a read. But it's worth noting the flip side of Simpson's observation that none of the parties is managing to break through to its next logical goal - which is that trench warfare is fairly predictable when each party also has some turf that it's looking to protect. And on that point, it's not hard to see how each of the parties in Parliament might see the prospect of marginally increasing the chances of reaching the next level of support as not being worth losing what they have now.

The Cons have seemingly done everything they can think of to inch their way toward a majority during their stay in government. But it's understandable that they'd want to hold onto their place in government in the process - which obviously be in danger if any risk goes wrong. And that figures to have much to do with the current strategy of hanging onto the base and waiting for some outside factor to break in their favour.

Likewise, the Libs are surely frustrated with being stuck behind the Cons, but face a serious enough threat from the NDP for the role of default alternative party to see the need to defend their turf even if it means further entrenching the current positions. And the NDP has a historically broad base of support to build from in trying to move past its traditional polling levels, meaning that it too has something valuable to lose if it goes on the offensive without protecting its current ground.

And that trend is only reinforced by the professionalization of each of the national parties. That may in fact serve as one of the additional factors signalling a shift away from brokerage politics, as party formations communicate with target voters consistently rather than coming together primarily at election time - while also developing independent incentives to hold onto the resources currently available to them. And the end result is that it becomes more difficult for any party to gain ground compared to its competitors, or to try out radically different strategies.

Now, it's worth noting that the Greens look to be an exception on all fronts: they don't seem to have become professionalized to the same extent as the other parties, and obviously have far more to gain by reaching their next goal of electing an MP than they have to lose if they fall short. But it can't escape notice that their effort to be different hasn't exactly captured much of the public's interest. And that fact may well serve only to reinforce the idea that nobody else should try to follow in their footsteps.