Hodgson from the Cabinet.

One is that Mr. Hodgson, having challenged Ms Smith for the leadership of the Progressive Labour Party and therefore the Premiership, had been disloyal.

Having made it clear the he felt he made a better leader than Ms Smith, it would be difficult for her to function with him in the Cabinet unless he reaffirmed his loyalty to her.

The parliamentary convention in those circumstances is to offer to resign. It is then up to the leader to decide whether or not to accept the resignation.

Mr. Hodgson defied convention when he failed to offer his resignation after his defeat last Thursday, although he made it abundantly clear that he was prepared to serve the Premier in whatever way she saw fit.

As Premier, Ms Smith is entitled to loyalty from her Cabinet colleagues, who, if they are dissatisfied with the decisions of the Premier or their colleagues, can resign.

Without that convention, the whole system of collective responsibility, in which the Cabinet speaks with one voice once a decision is made and in which the Premier is first among equals, falls apart.

From that point of view, Ms Smith was entitled to fire Mr. Hodgson and in doing so, she has shown that she is a strong leader.

That is one point of view.

The other is that during the summer Ms Smith invited, indeed welcomed, a challenge, saying it would be good for the party, which is run on democratic lines.

Cynics saw this as an attempt to smoke out any potential rivals well before the party conference, just as the sudden announcement of Constitutional changes could be seen as a late bid by the Premier to show that she was leading the Government.

But if the Premier's words were taken at face value, then they could be seen as an invitation to contest a leadership election, in which ideas and points of views could be debated and exchanged, thus producing a stronger and better informed party at the end of the day; a utopia where people could speak without fear and have their views welcomed and debated, even if they did not follow the exact party line.

If one thing is now certain, it is that no-one will believe the Premier the next time she "welcomes a challenge''.

They will know that an unsuccessful challenge will mean demotion and the end of a Cabinet career.

That is a shame in this case, because Mr. Hodgson was very careful in stating why he was running. It was not out of personal desire or animosity towards the Premier. He ran because members of the party asked him to -- and he ran, he says, knowing he was going to lose.

For that, he was dismissed.

This newspaper may not have agreed with everything Mr. Hodgson advocated or did, but he was widely recognised as a deep thinker who had proven himself to be an effective and decisive Minister of the Environment. He was prepared to listen to all sides before making a decision based on all of the available evidence.

Those are the qualities of a good Cabinet Minister and he will be missed.