In uk.transport.london message
om, Thu, 4 Jun 2009 20:01:22, Tony Polson
posted:
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".
No. But note the difference between 'appointed' and '"appointed"'.
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.
Any effective communication is better than none, except perhaps from the
point of view of the immediate recipient. Prescott is substantially
what he appears to be; but Brown deceptively appeared competent.
Blair had Brown as his Chancellor for a decade, and apparently as his
friend for a considerable while before that. Blair should have known
what he was doing. He has, in fact, managed to make his regime look
comparatively good by contrast with Brown's.
--
(c) John Stockton, nr London, UK. Turnpike v6.05 IE 7.
Web URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.
I find MiniTrue useful for viewing/searching/altering files, at a DOS prompt;
free, DOS/Win/UNIX, URL:http://www.idiotsdelight.net/minitrue/ unsupported.