Storm clouds gathering over Tony Abbott's leadership

Three of the biggest figures of the Howard years shared their worries this week. "My concern is growth is not picking up quite as much in Australia," said John Howard. He feared the country had entered a "new paradigm" of "sub-par growth".

Peter Costello agreed: "Our economy is growing slower than the long- term average. Letting these average tax rates ratchet up higher and higher is not helping it."

The general expectation among Liberal MPs, among Abbott's friends and foes alike, is that the next spill will be precipitated by the frontbench. 

Peter Reith made the point that "the issues of today – same-sex marriage and the royal commission – will not be the big issues that determine the next election. Security, jobs, living standards, health and education will all be more important."

Illustration: Rocco Fazzari

The former leader returned to his theme: "The biggest challenge for us is to get growth at a higher level," and that would allow "a slow unwinding of our high debt levels".

The national debt was on Costello's mind, too: "Balancing the budget has been put off to some time about 2020," said the former treasurer and last person to balance the budget.

"This means well over a decade of deficits, if the problem is fixed at all. There is now a tacit agreement to put the problem off to the never-never."

Reith named the solution, and the problem: "Of course the only real answer is bold economic reform but as the party room meets this week, whether spoken or not, the issue on the minds of MPs will be leadership."

It may be, said Reith, that Australia had just "enjoyed two golden years of good government thanks to Tony Abbott. But no one believes it".

These three heroes of the Liberal Party weren't holding a private confab in a quiet bar. These are the words they spoke, or wrote, in separate ruminations in the papers this week.

Howard was speaking to The Australian, Costello writing for The Daily Telegraph and Reith for Fairfax. Their overlapping concerns were published, coincidentally, on the same day, Tuesday.

This is what the grown-ups of the Liberal Party are saying in considered public remarks. It's a more telling critique than anything the Labor Party has said. 

The question of leadership, as Reith said, was not aired openly but, when they were safely behind their office doors, Liberal MPs and senators were readily talking about it when they returned to Canberra this week. 

The Abbott government has been behind in the polls for 16 consecutive months. Its members have lost confidence that the Prime Minister can turn it around. 

It's not that Labor is doing anything impressive; Abbott is simply failing on his own terms. As one Abbott supporter put it privately this week: "Those of us in marginal seats are mildly terrified". More palpable than terror, however, is despondency. They feel helpless in the face of unemployment. 

In years past, MPs would have taken comfort from the old rule that Australia does not toss out prime ministers after a single term. But that rule evaporated when the electors in Victoria in November 2014 and then Queensland in January this year removed first-term conservative premiers.

So the party's MPs are anticipating a crisis as the next election approaches. Here's how it's shaping. 

The next leadership crisis won't be like the last. The backbenchers who organised the spill motion in February are not minded to organise another. 

The backbench took drastic action to force Abbott into mid-term correction, to force him to change his approach to leadership. Of the 39 who voted to declare the leadership vacant, some were prepared to see him go altogether; some wanted Abbott to stay, but as a changed leader.

After two years of a three-year parliamentary term, it's too late for corrective action.  The next spill will not be corrective; it will be destructive. It will not be designed to chasten Abbott but to replace him. Remember that in February Abbott faced no challenger. Next time will be different.

Abbott won the February spill by 61 votes to 39. That margin of 22 is the same margin by which Bob Hawke survived his first challenge from Paul Keating. That means that just 12 of the MPs or senators who voted for Abbott last time need to switch sides to remove him. 

The general expectation among Liberal MPs, among Abbott's friends and foes alike, is that the next spill will be precipitated by the frontbench.  The common assumption is that Malcolm Turnbull, or a Turnbull stalking horse, will launch a challenge.

There was a report this week that "footsoldiers" for Turnbull, and those for another presumed candidate, Scott Morrison, were approaching MPs to gauge their support. It was wrong. 

In fact, one of the remarkable features of this phase is that none of the presumed candidates is making any aggressive move. No one, neither Turnbull nor Morrison nor anyone else, is campaigning, canvassing or destabilising. The positioning is more subtle.

It's also shrewder. A candidate who deliberately destabilises Abbott will be seen as a wrecker. That would count against him, or her. Even if that candidate were successful, he or she would inherit a bitter, angry, divided party. That's not a good starting point for an incoming leader.

There is sporadic leaking, but mostly it's low level like the leaking of ministerial talking points, which are in any case designed for public consumption. And leaks are a common feature of any dispirited government.

Was there a lot of public argument and disagreement between his cabinet ministers last week over same-sex marriage? Yes there was. Had there been a cabinet discussion of the matter or a cabinet decision on it? No there hadn't. So if there's no cabinet position on a subject, it can't be disloyal for ministers to disagree openly. Abbott decided to sidestep his cabinet; he set the conditions for public argument among his ministers.

The striking fact is that Abbott is failing because of self-inflicted injuries. Potential challengers are standing back as Abbott's government collapses in on itself, unassisted.

Would Turnbull like to take the leadership back from the man who tore him down? No one in the government doubts it. 

In the approach to the February spill, Julie Bishop was also much touted as a candidate for the leadership in the event that Abbott should fall. She, like Turnbull, did canvass her options on that occasion and kept open the option of running. She had been loyal deputy to three leaders and didn't want to agree to the status of permanent runner-up. Apart from anything else, she had to consider standing for the sake of women across Australia.

An outstanding Foreign Affairs Minister and an energetic fundraiser for backbench MPs, Bishop too can be considered a potential candidate for a post-Abbott Liberal Party. 

But both these candidates are from the moderate or left side of the party. Many of the conservatives in the party would find it too ideologically hard and too personally painful to support either. This is where Scott Morrison comes in. Though he's not actually a member of the conservative faction, he is the leading conservative candidate. 

His effectiveness in "stopping the boats" is a commanding credential. He is proving to be a competent and effective reformer as Social Services Minister too, but in a more centrist mode. Yet he has kept his conservative appeal well polished by opposing same-sex marriage.

Morrison, however, has told his colleagues and his leader emphatically that he would not lift his hand against Abbott for the leadership in any circumstances. Morrison would only consider standing in the event that Abbott were to lose a spill motion first. Even then, he is not committed to standing for the leadership. He is keeping his options open. While Turnbull is 60 years old and Bishop 59, Morrison at 47 has time on his side.

Is there any other leadership candidate? There is a possible dark horse. In the event that Abbott is removed in a spill, another of the government's most competent ministers would also consider running. Trade Minister Andrew Robb, 64, would be an attractive alternative for many conservatives, especially if Morrison were not running.

But, like Morrison, Robb would not consider contesting against Abbott so long as he remained in the picture.

Looming over the leadership question is the imperative of survival. MPs want to hold their seats and, preferably, hold government as well. The opinion polls will have a powerful say in guiding MPs' thinking.

There is a clear and established hierarchy here, reaffirmed in this week's Fairfax Ipsos poll. Asked to choose their favoured Liberal leader, 41 per cent of voters named Turnbull, 23 Bishop, Abbott 15, Joe Hockey 5 and Morrison 5.

Among Coalition voters, the hierarchy is different – Abbott is top with 35, Turnbull next with 25, Bishop on 23, Morrison 8 and Hockey 6. So while it seems at first glance that Turnbull is a no-brainer for the Liberals, his lower standing among the Coalition's base complicates the picture.

Some conservatives who find Turnbull too left-leaning, and some Liberals who found him too overbearing as leader last time, say they will never be able to support him.

Likewise, most of the Labor MPs under Julia Gillard's prime ministership used to swear that they could never vote to bring Kevin Rudd back. When electoral destruction loomed, the survival instinct overpowered their objections and they brought Rudd back.

The parallels are striking. But while Turnbull has to be considered the most likely candidate to lead the Coalition to victory, it's by no means inevitable that the party will give him the opportunity.

The next leadership crisis could be precipitated by a poor showing at the Canning byelection on September 19. Or, if Abbott survives that, Christmas is the next likely deadline. One way or another, Abbott is very likely to face a crisis between now and the end of the year.

Only one man can conceivably save him now. That man? Bill Shorten.

Peter Hartcher is the political editor.