From: Gene McAloon 

On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 12:20:36 -0500, "John Beamish"
 wrote:

>There are few who believe that Martin didn't bring in budgets that Chretien
>wanted.  After removing Martin from the cabinet, John Manley brought in a
>budget that followed the same road.
>
>While Blair might choke on that characterization, it seems to me that
>handing over control of the purse to someone else without giving guidelines
>(and seeing to it that they are followed) might be a tad risky.
>
>As for "you don't just dump him either" ... on June 2, 2002,
Chretien did
>just that.  Not only did he strip Martin of the Finance portfolio, he
>removed him from cabinet completely.  It may not be, as you say, the way the
>Parliamentary system works ... but it certainly worked that way on that
>date.

It is not supposed to be the way parliamentary systems work and those who
work it that way pay a heavy price indeed.  Thatcher dumped cabinet members
so regularly that the party finally dumped her. Chr‚tien dumped Martin and
now who is PM?


>
>"Gene McAloon"  wrote in message
>news:1d7ltvkdjibaq5226cir3fhh8f09f0s8eh{at}4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 22:34:39 -0500, "John Beamish"

>wrote:
>>
>> >Don't blame Martin's budgets:  the final word on the budget always comes
>> >from the PM.  And, since it's the final word, it's also the first word.
>>
>> Really?  Blair would choke on that characterization of PM control of the
>> treasury. I believer Chr‚tien would have done so as well. When you have
>got a
>> popular rival within government, particularly popular within the
>parliamentary
>> party, you don't just dictate to him and you certainly don't just dump him
>> either. That is not the way the parliamentary system works.
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5