I think the reason why people don't like ++George Carey is that he prevaricates and pussyfoots around with what he really thinks. A typical example is here, on ecumenical relationships with Rome.
If only he could be frank with us and tell us what he really thinks. It is just so like his successor to leave us confused by the ambiguity of his descriptions of states of affairs. If he thinks the money invested in ecumenical relationships is like paying a huge transfer fee for a striker who never scores, he should say so. And, incidentally, wouldn't it be a good idea for Archbishops of Canterbury to find brilliant analogies like that which connect with the not-so-academic, non-chattering classes of English people?
PS I continue to work on John's Gospel and am focused at the moment on a post which responds to John's comment to my post on Saturday.