Dr J R Stockton wrote:
In uk.transport.london message , Wed, 3 Jun 2009
11:32:27, posted:
I'm starting to wonder if it wasn't just for his own ego that Blair kept
Brown out of No10 for so long. Perhaps he realised just how truly bad he'd
be for the labour party as leader.
Then he should have "appointed" John Prescott, who at least would have
been better able to handle dissidents.
ITYM "anointed".
Whatever, John Prescott would have been a far worse choice than Brown.
Brown is an intellectual who cannot effectively communicate; Prescott is
severely intellectually challenged, and can effectively communicate only
with his fists.
Blair's position as the "appointer of the worst successor as political
head-of-country" can surely be challenged at most by the family Kim.
True. ;-)