Gerard Henderson, Chairman Rudd, the history wars and valiantly fighting on, on all fronts

This week's competition results for Gerard Henderson's Rudd will need reform for recovery:

First mention of John Howard: 5th paragraph

Number of mentions of John Howard: 8

How did you go punters, in the world's most elite gambling event? The results are alarmingly similar to last week's, so the odds were short, but the canny gambler could still well. Predictably in a nag should be welcomed, rather than scolded.

Sadly after the shouting's died away and the winnings have been pocketed and the bruised bookies wonder how they can do a Fine Cotton and nobble the results, there's not much else to entertain.

Henderson remains a marvel of predictability, with all the excitement of a well regulated Swiss watch (and therefore perhaps a target for the mad Colonel Gaddafi).

First he offers up a sacred vow to continue the arid intellectual debates of the history wars and the culture wares of recent years, as requested by Chairman Rudd:

He and some colleagues were upset the prevailing left-wing interpretation of Australian history - set in place by the late Manning Clark, Macintyre and others - was being challenged by some conservatives. This process is likely to continue irrespective of what elected politicians or tenured professors might say.

And even though Chairman Rudd didn't suggest closing down the economic debate, Henderson ploughs on like Mr. Plow, determined to set things right.

Because he's still upset about those articles Chairman Rudd scribbled for The Monthly and the SMH, and anxious that proper credit is not being given where proper credit is due. Which means only grudging credit can be given to the current team:

Rudd and his Treasurer, Wayne Swan, are celebrating that, so far, Australia has not gone into recession. Clearly the Rudd Government is entitled to take some credit. However, Australia also escaped recession during the Asian economic downturn of 1997 and the US recession at the turn of the century.

Yep, it was just a minor glitch, and they were just using the same get out of jail card we used the last couple of times. Then it's time to turn to the liturgy, the litany, or whatever you want to call it, which makes Henderson the dullest, most repetitive member of the commentariat going around:

It is the economic reform process - which began under Bob Hawke, continued during the Keating government and was prolonged by John Howard and Peter Costello - that explains today's strong performance.

Heard it all before? Endlessly, like a 78 rpm needle stuck in the shellac groove as some satanic imp keeps winding up the gramophone.

Then comes the strange pirouette which seeks to diminish Chairman Rudd, by praising Hawke and Keating, as if in their day Keating and Howard had a warm and respectful relation. Two heavy weight ditch diggers just wanting to bury the enemy now suddenly become noble warriors respectful of each other, political gladiators with the spirit of a Rusty Crowe:

When Howard was prime minister he occasionally paid tribute to the economic reform agenda of Hawke and Keating. Rudd is not inclined to return the favour. Rather he is attempting to associate the previous Coalition government with what he regards as the discredited agenda of neo-liberalism or free-market extremism.

The problem with Rudd's tactic is that it diminishes, unintentionally, the Hawke-Keating role in the transformation of the economy. In February, Keating queried Rudd's critique of neo-liberalism on Lateline, pointing out he had been central to the reduction in protectionism, the floating of the exchange rate and introducing flexibility into highly regulated industrial relations. This reform agenda was continued by the Coalition from 1996 until its defeat.

Oh it's a noble lineage from Julius Caesar to Augustus Caesar and now suddenly we have Gaius Germanicus - that's Caligula to you folks - ascended to the throne, and all is ruined.

On and on goes Henderson in his own version of the history wars, marking up the past as a matter of sublime agreement on all matters related to economic reform, and casting the current mob as Luddites:

Rudd's attack on neo-liberalism is not just a matter of spin. Neither he nor Julia Gillard has ever been in the forefront of the economic reform debate. Both entered Parliament at the 1998 election when, foolishly, Labor was walking away from the Hawke-Keating legacy and both opposed the Howard-Costello reform agenda. During their time in opposition, Howard and Costello supported the overwhelming majority of Labor's economic reforms.

The Howard government was dominated by Howard himself, Costello, Alexander Downer and, in its early years, Peter Reith. The equivalent in Labor are Rudd, Gillard, Swan and Lindsay Tanner. Only Tanner has demonstrated a long-standing commitment to economic reform.

Yes, yes that's how I remember the old days. Howard and Costello in overwhelming support of the Hawke-Keating reforms. Why they didn't resemble an opposition so much as a squad of cheerleaders, in more seemly clothes.

Finally, and just as predictably, Henderson then lists the policy areas in which we'll all be rooned, which seeing as it's the same as last week, and the week before that and the month before that, let's just summarize as the disasterous re-regulation of labour, an emissions trading scheme (which let's not mention is part of John Howard's legacy) will lead to ruin, "whatever its primary aim, and the need for flexibility in employment. The right to sack anyone at any time, so to speak.

And if we don't get it, then the wonderful legacy of the Keating-Howard government (known henceforth to history as the LabLib coalition for ongoing and endless economic reform), will be lost to history.

So now it's not just a constant relentless burnishing of the Howard legacy we have to endure. Somehow the Keating-Howard government has crawled into the mix:

This is not the time to be bemoaning the alleged evils of neo-liberalism. The task should be how to continue the good work of Hawke, Keating, Howard and Costello and those who supported them.

Yep a seamless period of LabLib rule, or should that be LibLab rule, now likely to be ruined by that fly in the ointment Chairman Rudd because he writes papers about the evils of neo-liberalism, as if somehow the GFC was just a minor glitch on the radar screen.

For sheer one note playing on a one string ukulele, with bonus rampant parochialism that ignores the recent world economic upheaval, you really can't go past Henderson. He's a marvel.

But enough of that. Time to start the tipping for next week's gamble. What about John Howard to be mentioned in the fourth par, and for eight times?

And should we open a book on Paul Keating too, since he's now part of the ongoing parade of economic reformers? This week he turns up in the fifth par, just like his admirer Howard, and scores seven mentions, only one less than god himself.

Well for the devoted gambler, bored by gambling on flies or cane toad races, it could be the go as we celebrate the good old LibLab days of yore ...

And yet it seems like only yesterday Paul Keating was calling Costello's structural economic changes inconsequential, from "the greatest L-plater of all time", and dubbing Joe Hockey "Shrek" (Lateline). Which produced a bite from John Howard, who insisted he'd started the ball rolling way back when, and Costello claiming that the floating of the dollar had nothing to do with the government, and Keating calling Howard and Costello's comments "a farrago of lies and shibboleths".

How I yearn to abolish the history wars and get back to those good honest yeoman times when men were men and honored each other in honorable ways. (here for a pdf of a Steketee column on the good old days). Hang on, I'm starting to sound like Gerard Henderson. Someone take me out to the back paddock and put me down ...

(Below: John Howard wondering if he's allowed enough time for Paul Keating to keep praising his economic policy, as he has to look at the new logo for the LibLab party).