First, let's have Dave make a critically important observation:
Cadman's survivor benefit, unless I have this mistaken, would have been approximately 2 years annual salary as a member of parliament. That would make a $1 million offer more - much more.
And, by way of contrast, let's check in on a typically retarded member of Stephen Taylor's Blogging Tories:
If the insurance policy was "only to replace financial considerations he might lose due to an election" then it's an absolute non-issue. The Opposition should drop it immediately and get back to opposing.
If the policy was discussed as part of incentives to sway Cadman's vote then that's a criminal act and the RCMP should be involved immediately.
OK, Mark, let's try to connect the dots, then, shall we? Dave managed to do it, so can you. Come on ... it's not hard, you can do it. Which of those two possibilities seems to be supported by all the evidence?
Frankly, sometimes I'm not sure why I bother.
AND THE BT WEASELLY HACKERY CONTINUES: BT Mike Brock tries to do nuance, and gets hammered in his own comments section. Not surprisingly, he doesn't take it well.