There are plenty of ex-PMs but does anyone care what they have to say?

Why would anyone even think about going to a former leader for unconflicted sage advice?

Which Australian prime minister had the most predecessors who were still alive when they moved into the Lodge?

There are actually two - successive Labor PM’s John Curtin and Ben Chifley. In both cases when each became PM there were eight former PMs who were still alive, including in the case of Chifley, the interim stand-in Frank Forde between him and Curtin.

Now this is not just an exercise in political trivial pursuit - contrasting with the line-up of ex-presidents (SANS one) behind Joe Biden at his inauguration. Or to provide, perhaps, a million-dollar question for Eddie (still everywhere) McGuire’s Millionaire Hot Seat.

I have some serious very contemporary points. They centre on which PMs are next in the ‘most living predecessors’ list. There are three who had seven, all of them Liberals: Robert Menzies, Tony Abbott and the incumbent Scott Morrison.

Former Australian prime ministers John Howard and Tony Abbott Picture: AAP

After the death of Bob Hawke, Morrison still has six former PMs out there - in neatly matched pairs. There’s the Labor duo Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard, his own Liberal duo of Abbott and Malcolm Turnbull and the two surviving elder statesmen of each party, John Howard and Paul Keating.

If I note that only the third pair - Howard and Keating - were clearly at war with each other specifically and generally with leaders (and policies) of ‘the other party’, when they were politically active, you might see where I’m headed.

Each of the other two duos were arguably more at war with each other than their supposed political opponents.

This is something which began, uniquely in the 120-years of Federation, just ten or so years go.

In the space of less than a decade we have seen in both parties, two incumbent PMs sacked by their colleagues not the voters. That leaves a lot of ‘ex-PMs’

Indeed, as I’ve previously noted, Turnbull has the unique distinction in the entire history of Australian politics of being the only leader who has been sacked twice by his colleagues - the first time was as opposition leader.

This has created the unique situation of a number of ex-PMs - four right now - who are still young enough to be politically active. The oldest of the quartet is Turnbull who’s 66.

Earlier PMs might have had a lot of ex-PMs around, but they were mostly old and with all-but the rare example well-past political activity.

My second point is that despite having all these ex-PMs around, does anyone - putting it very bluntly, with due apologies to some of them - care much what they might have to say about anything?

Outside, that is, their specific acolytes in the media?

Does anyone seriously think you would go to Turnbull or Rudd for learned ‘elder statement’ - considered, sober and substantive, a-political - advice on a major contemporary policy issue or challenge?

Former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull. AAP Image/POOL/Mick Tsikasvia NCA NewsWire

Yes, Keating has been on the ABC and in the Nine papers demanding his precious superannuation edifice must be left untouched.

But does anyone outside industry super – which has been feeding super-rich on compulsory super - seriously think he’s got anything relevant to say about super in the age of the virus?

A big factor why ‘elder statesmen’ aren’t what they used to be is the 24/7 real-time and social media reality of modern life.

A less obvious and more important factor, I would suggest, is that politics has become less - almost to the point of nothingness - about policy, far less even policy debate, and all-about instantaneous message massaging.

In that context why would anyone even think about going to a former leader for unconflicted sage advice. Even if you thought they’d be able to provide it.