That position is better than it looks because we are behind countries like Ireland and Iceland whose economies have collapsed over the past 12 months, and Luxembourg, which has a population of only 400,000 and is an oddly stuctured principality.

Our per-capita income was higher than Germany, France, Italy, Spain, the UK, New Zealand – but behind, the US, Sweden, Austria, Netherlands, Sinapore and Norway.

Australia’s ranking was more or less in continuous decline through the 20th century and bottomed out during the 1980s – curiously around the same time as the Hawke-Keating reforms.

The Harvester judgement you talk about, was part of the reason for the decline during the 20th century because the wages delivered were not associated with higher productivity than other countries, but tariff protection – it was simply unsustainable.

If you were to chart the Human Development Index over the course of the last 100 years, you would find a steady rise in absolute terms, but a decline in relative terms during the first 90 years of the twentieth century. So, again, unless all you think is relevant is relative comparisons, I would say that in absolute terms Australia is much wealthier than it has ever been, but in relative terms, was once more highly placed. In terms of the social capital arguments you made, I think those are debatable as it depends on what weight you place on the things we have now, that we didn’t then – in my view the much greater openness of Australian society now is worth quite a lot.

Are you really claiming that because Australian’s per-capita incomes were higher than other countries in the 19th century that we were wealthier than than now? Really? So only relative comparisons matter, not absolute comparisons? That would be like saying that if Australians’ life expectancy was 40 and all other countries were below that, we would be better off than if our life expectancy was 80 and there were a few countries at 85. Today, we are much better eduacted, even average income earners can afford things like international travel, we are healthier (life expectancy, child mortality rates, etc), society is more culturally diverse (the white australia policy is no more), etc, government provides a lot more protection to citizens through social welfare. I think you are looking at the past through rose coloured glasses. Both absolute and relative wealth matter.

And in PPP adjusted terms, per-capita incomes in Australia are in the top ten in the world (and this is looking like increasing over the next few years given the dramatic falls in output among other industrialised countries) – we actually slid down in the international tables in per-capita terms during the 20th century for a number of reasons, but in large part because of the Australian settlement built around high industrial tariffs and high wages behind that tariff wall. Our industries were horrendously uncompetititve in international markets and productivity growth was weaker than for most other industrialised countries. It wasn’t until the Hawke-Keating reforms that Australia began to improve its relative position in the world, and even then it took time to take effect.

So, unless the only thing that matters is our relative per-capita incomes and wealth, it is you that is wrong, not Hockey.

I can’t help but think that Turnbull might not just be leading the ‘moderate’ faction (as we are being told the ‘Sydney moderates’ now run the show), but be straddling two groups, the ‘moderates’ and the anti-Howard pro-Costello lot. Two groups that are not necessarily one and the same.

Minchin, Abetz and the rest of the stormtroopers aren’t going to take this lying down. Hot damn! Strap yourselves in and pass the popcorn. This should be quite a show.

Perhaps we can look forward to the prospect of a body being dragged some distance behind his chariot … But who’s?