It took longer for the removal trucks to make it to Kirribilli House than it did for John Howard’s reputation to be dragged through the mud by his own party. In some cases, those found at the scene of the crime are implicitly critical of Howard while protecting their own reputation.

“I told the old bugger to go but he wouldn’t listen” has been a common refrain.

Howard’s dominant leadership style is the excuse du jour for the lack of a leadership transition and slow response to policy challenges such as climate change. The concomitant spinelessness of the rest of the party also bears some examination. It didn’t take a political genius to know that industrial relations reform was a political risk.

WorkChoices is proving to be as helpful in opposition as it was in government. Whatever the merits of the argument that elements of that legislation, such as unfair dismissal provisions, are worth saving, Rudd and Gillard will have a whale of a time linking the unpopular provisions to the Coalition if there is resistance in the Senate to their new legislation. In the public mind, WorkChoices is an amorphous mass. Trying to salvage parts of it risks another belting from the electorate.

Yet, even blaming Howard for the election loss can’t unite the Liberals. Malcolm Turnbull’s defeat in the leadership ballot after he criticised Howard shibboleths on Kyoto and an apology to the stolen generations shows that there is no shortage of Howard loyalists in the parliamentary party. Turnbull will now use Howard’s pursuit of Andrew Peacock as inspiration, generating so many policy ideas that his leader will look like a chump in comparison.

There is a push for Chris McDiven to be replaced as federal president and Graham Jaeschke has announced that he will quit as party director in NSW. These are both signs that Howard’s neglect of organisational matters was a mistake that party hard-heads don’t want to repeat. Frankly, though, internal fights are all that remains for a party used to success.

For a conservative, Howard was a remarkably unsentimental leader. He did what was necessary to win. Similarly ambitious up-and-comers have their choice of leadership models: Howard’s impatience and eventual triumph versus Costello’s long wait for no reward.