What is the point of this story?

noreply@blogger.com (Steve) — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 06:49:00 +0000

All good things must come to an end. So too must many mediocre things, like this blog.

It's time to declare this space deceased. In an effort to return to being serious about blogging, I'm taking up residence at http://noticeofmotion.blogspot.com. It's been fun, mostly.

noreply@blogger.com (Steve) — Thu, 17 May 2007 21:02:00 +0000

Has it occurred to anybody else...

...that if there's a team in the NHL today that's both good enough to make it to the Conference Finals and bad enough to be the third team in history to squander a 3-0 series lead, it's the Ottawa Senators?

noreply@blogger.com (Steve) — Wed, 16 May 2007 21:31:00 +0000

I've long been receiving e-mails from the Conservative Party

To say nothing of e-mails from groups who find the Conservatives too moderate, like Focus on the Family (Hi Chuck!) and Engaging Christians in the Public-square. These e-mails, I presume, are as a result of my brief membership in the late Progressive Conservative Party of Canada.

As regular readers (shouldn't you have dwindled away to zero by now?) of this space are aware, I donated a hundred dollars to Stéphane Dion's leadership campaign (technically, this makes me a donor to the Liberal Party, although a condition of my donation was that it only be used to fight other Liberals, so it doesn't really count). When I did so, I provided an e-mail address, and now I've started receiving Liberal e-mails as well. Here's one I received today from John McCallum (emphasis mine):

Dear Liberal Friend,

It’s been seven months since Stephen Harper reneged on his promise not to tax income trusts.

The immediate effect of his deceit sent shockwaves through the markets, and eliminated $25 billion from peoples’ hard-earned savings. Retirement funds, post-secondary education savings, and many other forms of investments evaporated in less than one business day.

But the effects on investments are not the only casualty of the Conservatives’ ill‑conceived plan. As a country, we are experiencing an accelerated rate of foreign takeovers in the income trust sector. In the first six months after the income trust announcement, there were 16 take over attempts of Canadian Trusts, mostly by large U.S. private equity firms and pension funds that will deprive average Canadian investors of the ability to own those trust units.

Worse, these private equity firms will pay little or no tax to the Government of Canada. A recent study by KPMG Canada found that the first 13 takeovers will result in the federal government losing roughly $130 million dollars per year in tax revenue.

And this is what the Conservatives call tax fairness. A $25 billion hit on the savings of Canadian investors, the wholesale sell off of income trusts to foreign interests and less tax revenue for the government which of course other Canadians will have to make up for.

The decision Stephen Harper and Jim Flaherty made to tax income trusts is appalling and entirely unnecessary.

Stéphane Dion’s Liberals have a plan to reverse the damage done by the minority Conservative government. According to experts, the Liberal plan will return at least 2/3 of investors’ money by replacing the 31.5% tax with a modest 10% tax paid by companies that would be refundable to Canadians. This plan will work: It will protect Canadian investors and Canadian companies.

But we need to be able to communicate this message to Canadians. As the Official Opposition in the House of Commons, it is the Liberal Party of Canada’s duty to expose the damage done by this minority Conservative Government.

A donation from you today will help us shed more light on this issue. The powerful combination of your financial support and my voice will ensure that all Canadians know the truth about this massive Conservative blunder.

Please consider a donation of $100 or even $400 today to help the Liberal team. Your donation will go directly towards getting our progressive message out to all Canadians.

Thank you for your support.

Sincerely,

Hon. John McCallum, MP
Liberal Finance Critic

Apparently, where John McCallum lives, attacking the decision to tax income trusts is a winning issue even if what you're promising if elected is to, uh, tax income trusts.

noreply@blogger.com (Steve) — Mon, 14 May 2007 02:28:00 +0000

Things to Watch for in the Next Election

The latest polls (with which, as a former Prime Minister would remind us were he still with us, dogs know what to do) are showing the Liberals with a decent shot of getting back into government. All evidence suggests that this is on the strength of the green issue (which is hardly a surprise, given that Stéphane Dion was elected on the most one trick pony-esque platform of any leader of a national party for as long as I can remember).

These same polls show the Green Party at high levels of support (ten percent-ish). This is hardly unprecedented during inter-election periods, and there's no reason to believe that the Green (note capital G) vote won't collapse this time around as well, but that's still a hefty chunk of Canadian voters who claim that they plan to vote Green.

So here's the thing: given that the apparent best strategy for the Liberals, as it so often is, is to convince voters who are to their left that they represent the lesser evil, what's to become of the relationship between Dion and his BFF Elizabeth May?

(And yes, I'm suitably ashamed to be familiar with the acronym "BFF".)

noreply@blogger.com (Steve) — Thu, 10 May 2007 22:36:00 +0000

Questions that may be less pertinent than they are amusing

Why would an anarchist want to work for the government?

noreply@blogger.com (Steve) — Fri, 04 May 2007 23:15:00 +0000

The NDP is at it again

Sigh.

My thoughts on this announcement can be found a year and a half in advance here.

(Oh, and while I'm claiming something of a reputation for soothsaying, it would really help if you'd stop reading the above post before you get to the part about how Stephen Harper "probably won't even win a minority [government]." Thanks.)

noreply@blogger.com (Steve) — Fri, 04 May 2007 07:49:00 +0000

Steve the Contrarian Strike Again!

Or, more accurately, doesn't. Do you know what Conventional Wisdom has exactly right? This Shane Doan thing.

Just sayin'. And writin'.

noreply@blogger.com (Steve) — Tue, 01 May 2007 02:43:00 +0000

Not that I have more than one reader at the moment...

...but could somebody enlighten me on the difference between a carbon tax (with the equivalent of a universal credit) and fines for failing to reach greenhouse gas reduction targets?

noreply@blogger.com (Steve) — Sat, 28 Apr 2007 18:28:00 +0000

Who are you planning to nuke, Barack?

A couple of weeks ago, Roman asked me who I wanted to be elected U.S. President in 2008. Like most people of my approximate political stripe, I'm hoping for an Al Gore candidacy - as Catrin put it, he might have needed some time out of office to rediscover his idealism, and I think his star is now so tied to the global warming issue that he couldn't possibly serve in office again without taking real action on it, as opposed to the Clinton administration's weak record.

But in answer to Roman's question, I threw out a different name: Mike Gravel.

Roman responded that it was just like me to support a candidate he'd never even heard of, which I took as a compliment. But after his performance at the South Carolina debates, I think more people will be hearing of him soon.

noreply@blogger.com (Steve) — Thu, 04 Jan 2007 17:05:00 +0000

Obligatory Cabinet Shuffle Post

1. Well, at least Harper's signalled his willingness to work across party lines on the environment issue.
2. He must really have something against Diane Ablonczy.
3. Jason Kenney? Geez.

UPDATE: And now Marjory LeBreton, an unelected politician, is taking on the cabinet-level role of Secretary of State for Seniors. I'm sure we'll hear outrage from the predictable sources shortly. Actually, I'm not at all sure, because I don't think said sources pay enough attention to Canadian politics to have noticed this.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Well, okay, a Secretary of State isn't a full cabinet-level position. But (1) it's still bound by cabinet solidarity, (2) it attends cabinet meetings where issues relevant to its portfolio are being discussed, and (3) I'm not so much making a point as I am ridiculing stupid people. Accordingly, I see no reason to backtrack on any of this.

noreply@blogger.com (Steve) — Fri, 22 Dec 2006 08:45:00 +0000

The Gomery Recommendations: Harper Nails It

I'm impressed.

When I'm opposed to recommendations designed to empower the legislative branch, that's a pretty good indicator that those recommendations are badly flawed. Deputy Ministers are already quite politicized enough - the last thing we need is to increase this politicization by requiring them to account to the Public Accounts Committee, which is properly concerned with political accountability - you know, like the accountability of Ministers to Parliament. The sort of accountability that is enforced, in part, by having Ministers account to the Public Accounts Committee.

Beyond that, there's already going to be huge inertia in an organization the size of the federal government. Making Deputy Ministers accountable to anybody but their political masters would only increase this inertia. If there's a tradeoff here to be made between good governance and empowerment of elected officials - and I'm not at all convinced that there is - we need to err on the side of empowerment of elected officials, or democracy ceases to have any meaning (this sounds like histrionics, but it's no exagerration).

The one area where I'm somewhat undecided is on the question of division of the role of the Clerk of the Privy Council. There's no question the current structure of the civil service, where Deputy Ministers report both to their Ministers (who report to the Prime Minister) and to the Clerk (who reports to the Prime Minister) is a little odd. Gomery hadn't proposed making it any less odd, however - he just proposed dividing their reporting structure between their Ministers and some unspecified member of the Civil Service who wouldn't be the de facto Deputy Minister to the PM (as distinct, confusingly, from Deputy PM), but would still report to the PM.

Frankly, this episode is increasing my conviction that the Conservatives are the strongest party on governance issues, Senate reform notwithstanding. Now if only they weren't such an egregiously bad match for my economic (and, to a lesser extent, social) views...

noreply@blogger.com (Steve) — Thu, 21 Dec 2006 10:38:00 +0000

Dept. of Stupid Ledes

From this story:

A 24-year-old Hamilton man faces charges in what may be the first case of police using the Internet as an investigative tool.

If this is true, I officially resent paying whatever portion of my rent goes towards property taxes.

noreply@blogger.com (Steve) — Tue, 19 Dec 2006 01:46:00 +0000

Questions The Occur to Me While Reading Right Side Up: Part 1 in a series of at least one part

Yeah, whatever did happen to that office of public prosecutions we were promised?

noreply@blogger.com (Steve) — Tue, 19 Dec 2006 00:19:00 +0000

Itemized List

Item: Bob Rae to help write Liberal election platform.

Item: Liberal slogan during 2007 election to be "You're electing a Parliament, not a set of policies."

noreply@blogger.com (Steve) — Thu, 14 Dec 2006 02:16:00 +0000

Ambivalence!

Well then.

This would make the Senate better-equipped to fulfill its purpose, which puts those (like me) who don't believe that it has any legitimate purpose in something of a bind. Is it worth making an undemocratic body slightly less undemocratic if doing so has the effect of making it more aggressive in its undemocratic behaviour? Right now, the Senate doesn't qualify as much more than a waste of money and a theoretical blight on Canada's democratic landscape - if this bill passed, it would still be a waste of money, will be less of a theoretical blight, and likely more of a practical blight.

I honestly have no idea where I sit on this.

noreply@blogger.com (Steve) — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 08:35:00 +0000

And Pete Townshend agrees!

I've never seen an episode of CSI: Miami. This fully justifies that decision.

noreply@blogger.com (Steve) — Tue, 12 Dec 2006 06:58:00 +0000

Belated Post on Dion and Citizenship

I'm not entirely decided on this, though I'm leaning strongly in the direction that he shouldn't have to give up his French citizenship, if only on the basis of precedent.

You can help me think this through, though: what do you consider the obligations of citizenship? I understand the legal obligations, but what are the moral ones? Besides the legal effects, none of which preclude a French citizen from serving as Prime Minister of Canada, what is the difference between my relationship with Canada and my German girlfriend's (said girlfriend being a Permanent Resident of Canada)? For that matter, besides the legal effects, what's the difference between my relationship to Germany (which is essentially nonexistent) and hers?

Honestly, the more I think about it citizenship in any country strikes me as being basically a passport and the right to vote. Is there more that I'm missing (preferably something that has some effect on the dual citizenship debate)?

noreply@blogger.com (Steve) — Mon, 11 Dec 2006 07:02:00 +0000

Whither the NDP?

Chantal Hébert's column suggests that the NDP has lost all ownership over the environment issue, and that, as a result of this and other factors, the party's very existence is in jeopardy next election.

If Hebert's right - and she hasn't been right about much else lately - this is a shame. I'm often pretty hard on the NDP, mostly because it pains me to see what ought to a party of principles - my principles, for the most part - sell out, where I basically expect it from the other parties, but they've a history of stronger environmental policy than any of the other parties. This includes the Greens - just ask the Sierra Club, which endorsed the NDP over the Greens at a time when its President was a lady named Elizabeth something.

I don't think the NDP's in jeopardy; it emerged from much direr straights after the e1993 election. But if it is, it's not the end of anything but a label. There will still be aggressively pro-environment MPs in the House, be they Greens, Blocquistes, independents, or even Liberals. In fact, given the direction that federal politics seem to be going, there will probably be more than ever. Getting attached to a specific party and elevating its importance to a higher plane than the issues for which it stands goes against most of what I advocate.

Let the chips fall where they may.

noreply@blogger.com (Steve) — Sat, 09 Dec 2006 00:05:00 +0000

My Three Hundred and Ninety-Fifth Post

Elizabeth May does realize that discrediting Stéphane Dion on the environment is going to have to be a critical part of her party's campaign in the 2007 election, right?

I mean, it's refreshing to see a politician who doesn't feel compelled to automatically attack a colleague on the basis of party affiliation, but there's also a point at which you have to wonder why she's leading a party that is, presumably, opposed to the Liberals. Is she really suggesting that she and Dion are that close on what is, for both of them, their flagship issue?

It does raise a fun hypothetical, though - suppose the Liberals win a minority government (more likely than they're being given credit for) and May wins Cape Breton-Canso (unlikely right now - made all the more unlikely, ironically, by Dion's win - though it's been one of the most bizarrely unpredictable ridings in the country since 2000), what are the odds she makes it into a Dion cabinet? Probably slim, but amusing to think about.

noreply@blogger.com (Steve) — Tue, 05 Dec 2006 08:56:00 +0000

A bad start

Stéphane Dion has wasted no time dragging out the tired (and utterly disingenuous) old Paul Martin "why do the Conservatives want to override the Charter of Rights and Freedoms?" line.

Once the federal government has unsuccessfully defended the position that marriage can be legally defined as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others before the Supreme Court of Canada, it will be fair to say that the Charter requires the legalization of gay marriage. Once the Conservatives advocate the use of Section 33 to preserve this definition, it will be sort of fair to accuse them of trying to override the Charter (I say "sort of" because Section 33 is, of course, *part* of the Charter).

Of course, ideally we won't reach this point, because the House of Commons will decide that, irrespective of whether or not the right of people to marry members of their own sex is protected by the Charter, allowing same-sex marriage is the right policy decision. But I'd really like to see a Liberal leader come out and say that gay people *should* be allowed to marry, instead of just that the Supreme Court will probably leave the government no choice on the matter in the purely hypothetical event that such a question is argued before it. I was hoping Stéphane Dion would be that leader. I am disappointed.

noreply@blogger.com (Steve) — Mon, 04 Dec 2006 07:00:00 +0000

Dion, Stelmach: Reaction from Adversaries

The Conservatives, who it has been suggested were caught unprepared for a Dion victory, were quick to post a reaction on their site. Interestingly enough, it gives most prominence not to his record as environment minister (where he is extremely open to attack) but to the fact that he was a member of cabinet during the sponsorship and HRDC scandals. I am intrigued - if this heralds a strategy of attacking Dion's integrity, I will be very curious to see how it works. My guess would be not well.

They do eventually get to his record on the environment, however, noting that "Dion’s record was so bad, he earned a sharp rebuke from the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development". But no sooner do they make this point than they move on to attacking is alleged lack of respect for provincial jurisdictions. I am very curious as to what they're basing this decision on - perhaps the Clarity Act, brainchild of, in part, Stephen Harper? They close with an irrelevant cheap shot at his rebuke to Michael Ignatieff during one of the debates - "Do you think it's easy to make priorities?", trying to paint him as directionless.

Frankly, I find it odd that the Conservatives would choose these areas to attack him on. I would be very surprised if they manage to paint Dion as either lacking integrity or as being a ditherer, both of which are very much at odds with his public image. I would also be surprised if the completely inaccurate image of Dion as an arch-centralizer takes root. There is certainly traction to be gained in attacking his record as environment minister, but you have to doubt that that traction is the Conservatives' to gain, given their own dismal record on the file.

The New Democrats do a little better. They attack Dion for his record as environment minister, which is exactly what they should be doing - to the extent that Dion poses a threat to the NDP, it's through his ability to convince New Democrat voters that a vote for him is, on the environment file, just as principled as one for the NDP and substantially more pragmatic. They also quote him as supporting the mission to Afghanistan, which is half-way there - but for some reason they avoid accusing him of flip-flopping through his later (quasi-) opposition to the mission.

Before they get to either of these, however, they point to three of his supporters in his leadership bid - Bryon Wilfret and Charles Hubbard, who oppose same-sex marriage, and Paul Steckle, who opposes abortion. If they are trying to imply that Stéphane Dion opposes same-sex marriage or supports the criminalization of abortion, this is scant evidence (it's also about the only evidence that exists, since he is guilty of neither offense). If this is not the NDP's intention, I confess that I am curious about what they *are* trying to establish.

Subsequently, they highlight his opposition to a number of private member's bills - NDP motions to prohibit replacement workers in federal workplaces, a motion on mandating more stringent fuel efficiency in cars produced for use in Canada, and a Peter Stoffer special on improved benefits for the families of fallen firefighters. Besides the fuel efficiency motion, which works to detract from his credibility on the environment, I don't see any of these doing much harm. Doing even less harm do I see the fact that, as pointed out from the New Democrats, Dion missed votes on the Kyoto protocol and the Kelowna Accord while campaigning for leader.

(If you were wondering, the NDP hasn't taken down the speech in which Jack Layton says that Dion is "distinct from his principal opponents in being a committed Canadian and a man of principle and conviction.")

The Greens are still too busy celebrating their second place showing in the recent by-election in London to have any comment on Dion, but Elizabeth May was quoted yesterday as saying "I was hoping Stephane would win from the start. He's a wonderful, sincere person of integrity and commitment to issues that matter to me. How can you argue with that? He shouldn't change, he is what he is, and we shouldn't want our politicians to be massaged into something they aren't. We worked well together in the past -- this is totally cool."

The most interesting reaction, as far as I'm concerned, is that of the BQ, which took the high road, with Gilles Duceppe quoted as saying "Dion started well-back in this race, but he new how to rally the support necessary to win it. Such qualities will make him an impressive adversary during the next federal election in Québec." This is unlikely indicative of much of anything, but I found it interesting that the party that is actually supposed to loathe Dion is pulling the most punches.

Provincially, none of the Liberals, New Democrats, or Alberta Alliance have much to say about Premier Ed, which isn't all that surprising - they probably don't know anything about him either. In a departure from the federal scene, it's the Greens who have a comment, even if they don't know how to pluralize.

noreply@blogger.com (Steve) — Sun, 03 Dec 2006 10:06:00 +0000

I'm feeling a creeping sense of inadequacy

Not because I totally miscalled this race. That's what bloggers do - we make sweeping predictions, we imply that everybody who doesn't immediately see their wisdom is either partisan or braindead, and then, when said predictions turn out to have been pulled from somewhere in the colon (where our heads were when we came up with them), we move on. The system works.

No, I'm feeling this inadequacy because I'd always considered myself as among this province's elite where political education is concerned - certainly in the top 1%, to use a number that I found right next to my prediction - and yet I don't know a goddamned thing about our new Premier.

Um, go Dion?

noreply@blogger.com (Steve) — Sat, 02 Dec 2006 23:39:00 +0000

Why'd you have to go and make things so complicated?

Hey Liberals: way to do something to make me not hate you. Jerks.

Other thoughts:

- Both Dion's supporters and Ignatieff's favoured comparisons between their candidates and Pierre Trudeau. All of them were a stretch, but here's one basis on which Dion is Trudeau-esque: hey marks the first Liberal leader since Pierre Trudeau not to spend basically his entire adult life plotting to become Prime Minister. Stephen Harper, not coincidentally (hopefully) is the first Prime Minister since Trudeau not to spend his entire adult life in pursuit of that goal. (UPDATE: Kim Campbell doesn't count). It's a bad era for professional politicians.

- This also marks the first time since I don't know when (seriously, I'm not aware of the dynamics leading to Wildred Laurier winning the Liberal leadership) that the federal Liberal Party staged an upset. Certainly all of Paul Martin, Jean Chrétien, John Turner, Pierre Trudeau, Lester Pearson, Louis St.-Laurent, and William Lyon MacKenzie King went in as favourites.

- I backed Dion largely because I thought he was most committed to environmental protection. I liked what Ignatieff had to say on the subject as well, but I sensed that Dion, with his fabled intellectual integrity and his obvious emotional attachment to the file, was the one who'd follow through. I'll be watching.

- On October 2, I predicted the first ballot results. Compare my predictions to the actual results:

Prediction
Michael Ignatieff - 30.7%
Bob Rae - 20.4%
Gerard Kennedy - 17.7%
Stéphane Dion - 17.3%
Ken Dryden - 4.8%
Joe Volpe - 4.7%
Scott Brison - 4.0%
Martha Hall Findlay - 1.0%

Actual
29.3% Michael Ignatieff
20.3% Bob Rae
17.8% Stéphane Dion
17.7% Gerard Kennedy
4.9% Ken Dryden
4.0% Scott Brison
3.2% Joe Volpe
2.7% Martha Hall Findlay

You'll note that I predicted four of the results within 0.1%. My most serious errors were in failing to anticipate the massive no-show of Volpe's delegates and the way that undeclared ex-officios migrated to Hall Findlay. I also overestimated Ignatieff by a little, but given that this was a time when Liberal insiders were saying that 35% for him was a slam-dunk, I'm pretty pleased with myself. But then, I'm always pretty pleased with myself.

- The combined intellects of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition are now as high as they've been since Confederation.

- Going into the last ballot, Ignatieff supporters were trumpeting his comparative electability. Nonsense. Michael Ignatieff could not have won a federal election as a party leader. That's not to say that Dion could - I'm inclined to agree with the pollsters who thought that Rae was the most electable - but it's certainly no strike against him when compared to Iggy.

- The most depressing element of the campaign for me was watching how well Stéphane Dion had learned politics. When I initially supported him, it was because I thought he wasn't much of a politician, and that he was stubborn enough to continue not being much of a politician. Instead, he's learned his new craft well. I just hope it wasn't too well.

noreply@blogger.com (Steve) — Fri, 01 Dec 2006 00:31:00 +0000

Want to know the best way to convince Canadians that you take democracy seriously?

I'm not precisely sure what it is, but I know what it isn't.

noreply@blogger.com (Steve) — Wed, 29 Nov 2006 02:48:00 +0000

The curious case of Keith Martin

There is a certain portion of the punditry that considers all floor-crossings to be betrayals. These people do not distinguish between principled floor-crossings - such as John Herron, who went to the Liberals after his P.C. Party was swept out from under him, or David Kilgour (twice) - and those that are clearly power grabs, such as Belinda Stronach's, Scott Brison's, and David Emerson's. I am curious as to how such pundits explain Keith Martin, who voted against distinct society (as a Reform Party MP) in 1995. Contrast this with the records of his fellow No voters, all Liberals except Garth Turner: of the sixteen votes cast against the Harper government's motion, ten of them besides Martin's came from MPs who had been MPs in 1995, when Raymond Chan, Hedy Fry, Jim Karygiannis, Diane Marleau, Dan McTeague, Paul Steckle, and Andrew Telegdi supported the Chrétien government's distinct society motion - absent in 1995 but voting nay in 2006 were Joe Comuzzi, Maria Minna, and Joe Volpe (incidentally, for all the hullabaloo when Gerard Kennedy and Ken Dryden announced their opposition to the Harper motion, did anybody even realize that Volpe was also against it?).

Now, this doesn't necessarily constitute a flip-flop on the part of the above-named MPs. After all, though neither "nation" nor "distinct society" means anything, the former certainly means a lot *more* nothing than does the latter; there's really no obstacle to an MP believing that Québec is every bit a distinct society while somehow falling short of nationhood.

It's somewhat harder to understand where the MPs who were unprepared to acknowledge the distinct society thing while being very happy to call it a nation. Among these are a few noteworthy ones, such as (to pick an example at random) Stephen Harper, who as a Reform MP in 1995 voted against calling Québec a distinct society. Also voting this way were Reform cum Conservative MPs Gary Breitkreuz, Diane Ablonczy, Ken Epp, Monte Solberg, Bob Mills, John Williams, Leon Benoit, Myron Thompson, Jim Abbott, and Jay Hill. Art Hanger and John Cummins, also members of Reform's Class of '93, were not in the House when the division took place, while Chuck Strahl and Dick Harris were both absent when the distinct society motion was voted on in 1995. Finally, the Bloc Québécois caucus opposed the 1995 motion but supported the 2006 motion.

Now, it's not absolutely certain that these MPs were betraying their former beliefs, either. Perhaps they felt the distinction between Québec and Québécois was somehow important (though this strikes me as especially unlikely in the case of the Bloc MPs). Perhaps they somehow felt that "nation" was more palatable than "distinct society". Perhaps their views had genuinely evolved, though it's my experience that most politicians will go through the most tortuous and unbelievable explanation available before admitting that their beliefs have changed over the course of their time in office.

The point, though, is this: Keith Martin is being at least as true to his principles on this matter as his more partisanly consistent colleagues, and likely even more so.