The incoming Prime Minister, a few days earlier, had been the feature attraction at the richest fundraiser in the history of Canada, where he was attended by a fawning retinue of chief executives.

How to square this orgy of corporate palm-greasing with the coming into law, not three weeks hence, of a ban on just such activities? Well, he explained, it was very simple: The Liberal party really, really needs the money.

(Mr. Martin has made something of a specialty of these sorts of "explanations." How had he defended carrying on as the proprietor of Canada Steamship Lines even while Prime Minister? Well, you see, he really, really likes ships. How was it acceptable for a Minister of Finance to fly about on private jets provided him by various captains of industry, whose fortunes he held in his hands?

Well, you see, these were very, very close friends.)

In the middle of this ethics tutorial came the defection of Scott Brison. Having voted in favour of the merger of the Canadian Alliance and the Progressive Conservatives five days earlier, the Tory MP abandoned the new party for the Liberals, led by Paul Martin, whom he had derided in the most categorical terms just weeks before. Not to worry, he smoothly replied: he hadn't really meant any of those things. (It wasn't that he had sacrificed his integrity -- he never had any.)

It was left to Peter MacKay to voice the nation's outrage at this unprincipled betrayal of a solemn commitment.

But of course, the decision was entirely principled. The principle, as Mr. Brison explained, was that the party he had voted to create was a rigid, ideological party, whereas he preferred to belong to a moderate, centrist party. This was a theme voiced earlier by Joe Clark, his former leader. The 90% of the Tory party who had voted to join with the Alliance had given themselves over to extremism; he preferred to cast his lot with the moderate fringe -- sensible, responsible people like David Orchard and Sinclair Stevens.

If the centre is on the periphery, it suggests a certain confusion of terminology. It may be considered the height of wisdom among the Ottawa set that the new Conservative party should ditch the ideology and head for the middle, but that assumes some degree of certainty as to where the middle is. The middle, compared to what?

Liberals are inordinately fond of their self-image as the eternal centrist party, a fixed meridian from which all other positions on the spectrum can be reckoned. Members of the New Democratic Party, on the other hand, are given to asserting that everyone to the right of them is "on the right," on the theory that they are in the middle.

In fact, the middle is constantly moving. Whether you define the middle in terms of the fabled "median voter," or -- as most of the press seems to do -- as whatever happens to be the status quo at any point in time, it is incontestable that what is considered the middle ground today is vastly different from what it would have been a decade ago -- and what it will be a decade from now. The spending cuts that the "centrist" Paul Martin enacted in 1995 were denounced as radical, right-wing ideology by the same man two years before.

The middle moves, because somebody moves it. It was the arguments made by deficit hawks, in the Reform party and elsewhere, that convinced a critical mass of the public that it was not possible to just grow our way out of the deficit. When the Liberals finally put this consensus into effect, balanced budgets were conveniently redefined -- as pragmatic necessities, where before they had been considered extremist dogma.

The same is true of every innovation in public policy: of medicare, or free trade, or Confederation itself. Nothing would ever get done if every politician, in an effort to appear statesmanlike, took the advice of the pundits and simply hugged the status quo. Progress comes because of visionary leaders who, by the power of their ideas and the force of their arguments, move the middle.

Moderation is indeed a virtue, but it is a virtue most voters associate with personalities, not programs. They want to see whether you have thought through the consequences of your proposals, whether you have listened to other views, sought consensus where possible, compromised where necessary. It is a habit of mind they are after, mostly.

So yesterday's ideologue is today's moderate. Indeed, Mr. Martin has a reputation as a centrist precisely because of his readiness to steal the right's clothing. Those who covet the centre ground today must consider how sincere that theft was, or whether it is likely to continue. Mr. Martin has said all the right things since launching his campaign for Liberal leader -- on spending discipline, on democratic reform, on cleaning up Canadian politics, on getting off the fence in world affairs, on restoring Canada's reputation with its allies. It has been pleasant, even inspiring, to hear.

Yet looking at yesterday's Cabinet, it is difficult to see much sign of these fine statements being translated into reality. We hear of spending discipline, but we see a Cabinet of 39 -- plus 26 parliamentary secretaries. For all the talk of cleaning up the system, ACOA and WED and the other traditional Liberal slush- funds are all still there. The promise of a more honourable foreign policy is all very well, but the architect of the disgraceful old one is still in place.

And all the while the new Prime Minister talks of democratic reform, he is planning to call a quickie election in the spring, for no reason other than partisan advantage -- to hit the new party before it can get organized. But then, as he might explain, he really, really wants to.