Thread by @Lidsville

Activism on an issue is almost always in conflict with political partisanship. I don't see why this is so difficult to understand, but the fact that it seems opaque to so many is sort of evidence of how much things have changed in the past few decades. This used to be understood.

This is a blunter version of an earlier thread.

If you're a political partisan but are fighting an issue - housing, Site C, whatever - your allegiances are split & your strategies will be different than if you weren't a partisan. You won't seek traction against your party.

This situation is particularly dire under First Past the Post, which is a system designed to support larger parties & pull them all to some sort of artificial "centre" while virtually disqualifying smaller parties. Many won't vote for 3rd parties due to FPTP's lesser evil logic.

When the large parties likely to win are both have to pander to the same centre voting margin, you get, eg, the NDP behaving exactly like the BC Libs on a vast majority of key files (esp Energy, Forests/Lands & Mining). Obvs FPTP is not the only reason for this, but it's there.

But back to the main point: you can't get traction against political parties & their govts if you're a partisan, because there are too many times when you'll have to weigh the need to extract wins for the issue you're fighting vs. the harm or discomfort it will cause your party.

You can now observe open partisanship, often quite manic, in individuals in most big ENGOs now as well as some housing fights. Do those people not see how this looks, let alone the damage it does? It's like an open admission of split loyalties. It so clearly neuters your fight.

Maybe watch orgs & call them on this, if you are a member/supporter of their work:

Either open partisanship during an election (the very moment when they must do the opposite, since elections are the best times to extract promises from pols) or suspiciously wan stances.