Gerard Henderson, John Howard, Malcolm Turnbull, and the 'guess the jellybean' competition heats up

Fortunes were once again won and lost on this week's internationally famous Gerard Henderson competition.

Competition you ask? What competition? Well for those who came in late to the story, the Phantom swore on the skull of his father's murderer ...

Sorry, sorry, it's really hard to focus when thinking on Gerard Henderson. Extensive readership surveys suggest hits on this site drop to zero, while a meditative slumber - roughly equivalent to a Spanish siesta - hits the land.

But the idea of the competition was this. You bet on which paragraph the name of Oz's valiant ex-PM will be mentioned in Henderson's column for The Sydney Morning Herald, and then if you're feeling really sharp you estimate the number of times the Howard name will be mentioned throughout the piece. A bit like a 'guess the lollies in the jar' competition, though it is terribly hard to think of John Howard as a lolly. Even a lip smacking jelly bean. Perhaps more a stick of liquorice, though that was my father's favorite lolly, and he wasn't a mad John Howard fan.

Anyhoo, as Mr. Burns would say, this week John Howard turns up in paragraph two of Enter the young conservatives.

For the loyal faithful, this is a guaranteed if short odds result. So you might have to put down a million to win a hundred thousand, but hey it's a low risk gamble. Delusionary fools who think there might be zero mentions of Howard in a Henderson column can get odds of a million to one and always end up losing their dollar.

This week for example by our google count there were seven Howard mentions, a seemly number, and lucky as well, neither an unctuous too many nor a miserly too few. It seems around five to eight is the likely weekly tally, and accordingly my partner has found the bookie very shrewd and canny these last few weeks. (That's covert domestic patter for loser).

I guess you could also open a book on how many favorable mentions John Howard is given by Mr. Henderson, but that introduces all kinds of equivocations and uncertainties, and gambling should be a game of numbers.

Even so, you can imagine how we all choked on our toast when we read this:

It's almost two years since the Coalition lost the election and its prime minister lost his seat. The years have not been kind to Howard's refusal to hand over to Costello in his final term. The opportunity of a Costello leadership is now lost. The task is to rebuild the party with young, articulate political conservatives who believe in their cause. Traditionally, the conservative intellectual political tradition has been weak in Australia. There is no reason why this should remain the case.

Bradfield offers the Liberals a chance to demonstrate that they are willing to engage in the battle of ideas with a view to returning to government.

You could, if you were cruel, consider that a criticism of John Howard. The years have not been kind ... Well on this site we still get down on bended knee to thank Howard for keeping the desultory, smirking, smug clap happy Costello from the reins, and are grateful that finally it seems the Costello leadership dream is now lost. But wait, he's still in parliament, he could be parachuted into Bradfield to bring us all to Valhalla ...

The rest of Henderson's piece rambles on about the battle for ideas by mainly considering the horses lining up for the gate at the Bradfield by-election, an anxiety attack about the quality of the current Labor front-bench ("a dozen really impressive performers"), and a denigratory survey of the form of the current Liberal front row.

Tony Abbott emerges as a hooker with few ball skills, who played a bad game in the 2007 election (perhaps because he liked to ruck the opponent's head rather than the ball) and who is"regarded by some colleagues as a risk."

Nelson was a competent performer in the Howard government and a fine education minister. Yet he was never leadership material. He was too inclined to emote in public and wobble on policy. Turnbull was Nelson's obvious replacement. His essential weakness is that he lacks experience.

Well vale Nelson, always too willing to cry. Does the Phantom ever cry? Never!

As for Turnbull, lacks experience?

Actually I much prefer Brendan Nelson's diagnosis which you can read in Peter Hartcher's Doctor out of the house: Nelson's final diagnosis.

... the former medical practitioner feels the need to diagnose Malcolm Turnbull's condition. Says Dr Nelson: "You need to look up narcissistic personality disorder. There's about 5 per cent of the population who are born with narcissistic traits, and about 2 per cent have narcissism. He's got narcissistic personality disorder.

"He says the most appalling things and can't understand why people get upset. He has no empathy.

"At first, I thought he was demonstrative, demanding, emotional and narcissistic, using his wealth and charm for seduction, and always with a sinister threat just beneath the surface."

Hartcher goes on to look up the American Psychiatric Association's definition of narcissistic personality disorder, which I commend to you, but will save time by just mentioning Napoleon.

If you want further fun at the expense of the hapless Malcolm in the middle, you will find that Georgina Robinson's Disorder in the House: battle of the narcissists starts with the very first word being Napoleon, and in short order we then get Picasso and Jack Nicholson.

Robinson purports to take Nelson's diagnosis seriously - after all he is a doctor - but of course concludes that both Rudd and Turnbull display healthy narcissistic streaks.

But I see we've strayed far from Henderson and the battle of ideas, perhaps because his column is devoid of any idea other than analysing the form of various Liberal contenders and players as if they were so much horse flesh, within a still deeply felt yearning for the lost Valhalla of the Howard years.

Henderson's aversion to actual ideas in the column is perhaps best shown when he takes a pot shot at former Labor leader Mark Latham for enjoying the parliamentary superannuation scheme benefits whittled away by John Howard after a campaign by Mark Latham. It's what we call a "mreow" moment, with the claws extended to make sure the carpet shows permanent wear and tear.

Tch, tch, I wonder which ex-Liberal moaned into Mr. Henderson's ear about the indignity and injustice of it all.

But ould we take it as a criticism of John Howard? That he buckled up against Latham. Not really, it was just real politics, but it does show how hard it is to run a book on Henderson's righteous support for Howard.

Better to stick to the known knowns - first mention and number of mentions of the inestimable Mr. Howard - but for that competition, we will have to wait until next week and the next chance to play verbal lotto.

This week the race has been run, the field considered, the young contenders found hopeful and possibly glorious, and fortunes have been won and lost. You might think this doesn't have much to do with the battle of ideas, but the battle for the cash in the purse keeps us excited about the thought of reading Gerard Henderson.

Imagine that you comatose silly billies as you nod off into slumber land ... get betting, and you too will be able to grip it and rip it.

(Below: a role model for Malcolm Turnbull and the Liberals?)