For anyone who thinks political change is glacier-like, take note. The Alliance Party recently helped speed a bill through Parliament (in three days) that forced all MPs (i.e., Alliance) back into a pension plan many once derided as "gold-plated." Not coincidentally, the same bill provided for a $34,000 severance top-up to some other MPs, mostly Liberal, already in line for million dollar plus pensions. Who says Ottawa can't accomplish the business of the nation

The hypocrisy of some Alliance MPs has already been well documented. Those Alliance MPs (John Duncan, Bill Gilmour, Jim Gouk and Jim Hart) that opted back into the pension plan in 1998 damaged mostly their own credibility. But they also soiled the reputation of their party and their pension-abstaining colleagues. The latest action shows an even more cynical calculation by some Alliance MPs vis-à-vis the public.

Thanks to the backroom deals concocted between Alliance House Leader Chuck Strahl and the master Machiavellian Liberal Don Boudria, all the MPs are in the pension plan, no protests allowed. And formerly dissenting MPs can buy back the pension time and dollars they purposely lost on principle. (BC Alliance MPs John Reynolds, Chuck Cadman, Philip Mayfield, Darrel Stinson, and Ted White voted in favour of this latest pension bill. So did John Cummins, but he's already in the plan and has said from the beginning he would take it.)

Back in 1998, after the Canadian Taxpayers Federation criticized MPs who opted back into the plan, the message we got back from some was "Hey, we thought there would be more of an electoral payback for our principled stand." Some were also piqued that the Federation and the media didn't concentrate more on Liberal MPs, most of whom stayed in the plan.

Principled stands don't require political "paybacks," and most Liberal MPs never campaigned against the plan in the first place. If principle really wasn't the motivation, then MPs who dressed up crass and cynical political calculation as "principle" deserve any and all scorn they receive, doubly so for this latest stunt.

Members of Parliament are entitled to a reasonable pension but most Alliance MPs campaigned against the present plan, harshly denounced it even after 1995 reforms, and promised voters they would stay out of it. If those MPs changed their mind, they should have had the courage to tell Don Boudria to forget about cooperation on this bill. Then they could have come clean, told the public they wanted back in, but that they wouldn't cooperate with any Liberal attempt to "force" them back in until after voters could pass judgment on this and other issues at the next election.

Instead - and tragically - they have stoked, not helped quench, the fires of public cynicism as regards politicians. And in the process, they helped BC Liberal MPs such as Raymond Chan and Herb Dhaliwal to an extra $34,000 severance payout, in addition to their (at least) $900,000 plus pensions.

The lesson from the pension wars is not that politicians should forget about staking out positions on principle and sticking to it. Nor is the lesson that politicians cannot change their mind - they can and should on occasion. (The Liberal promise to ditch former Conservative helicopter contracts ended up costing taxpayers a billion dollars, and is one promise that should have been dumped.) But where the issue is one of personal gain, combined with extra costs for taxpayers, and staked out as an issue of principle, no - politicians should not merely "change their mind" without first checking with voters.