Such is Malcolm Turnbull's magnificent, monolithic self-confidence he would never, ever have entertained matching Tony Abbott's sorry record of 30 consecutive negative Newspolls.

But match it he will, chalking up an ignominy of his own design on Monday.

It will provoke questions of where it all went wrong and what next, as chatter inevitably turns to political mortality.

When Mr Turnbull strode into a parliamentary courtyard on September 14, 2015, to confirm he would challenge Mr Abbott for the Liberal leadership — and therefore the prime ministership — he catalogued various metrics of failure.

As a critique of the Abbott era, it was brutal and scathing. In large part it was pretty accurate.

Economic leadership was missing, he said, economic confidence was low, positing that a new style of leadership was needed: one that explained the challenges and seized the opportunity; one that respected the intelligence of people.

"We need advocacy, not slogans," came his sly condemnation of Mr Abbott's renowned capacity to synthesise political messages like the best of Fleet St headline writers.

He stood for restoring "traditional cabinet government", ending policy on-the-run and "captain's calls".

"The one thing that is clear about our current situation is the trajectory. We have lost 30 Newspolls in a row. It is clear that the people have made up their mind about Mr Abbott's leadership," Mr Turnbull said, seemingly assured in the grand knowledge that he was so very different, destined for greatness.

Malcolm Turnbull gave a list of reasons for challenging Tony Abbott's leadership in 2015. ( AAP: Lukas Coch )

Coming after the hard line, divisive Abbott period, it was an attractive pitch.

For years, Mr Turnbull had been the politician on whom voters of every political persuasion could project themselves, whether it was the successful lawyer, banker and businessman, a self-made progressive, a free-thinking republican or family man.

He was politics' Renaissance man. Witty, charming, eloquent and talented, with millions in the bank to boot, testament to his entrepreneurial cleverness.

His stratospheric ratings upon taking the leadership from Mr Abbott reflected that broad appeal and the population's aching desire for something better.

But being the "catch-all" politician had a catch.

Being predictable can be valuable … for a while

"Brand Malcolm" was weak by virtue of his public identity being dispersed across the political spectrum, and in political leadership, branding is particularly important.

It builds instinctive context around deliberations and decisions for voters; they might not like what's done, but sometimes being predictable is just as valuable. Think John Howard.

At first it didn't matter for Mr Turnbull that his prime ministerial brand was still in development. Relief at leaving the Abbott aggro years made for good insulation.

He was forgiven for his first major policy outing, too. The vague, over-hyped but ultimately thin Innovation Statement of December 2015 was considered an endearing "Malcolm" moment, in keeping with his mantra about being agile and innovative.

But expectations remained high.

In February 2016, when Parliament resumed after the long summer break and five months after the leadership coup, Mr Turnbull was still massively popular.

In an election year, the Coalition was sitting pretty on a primary vote of 46 per cent in the first Newspoll of the year. The Turnbull trade looked like it had paid off handsomely for the Government. Labor was nervous.

Then the big slide happened. And it came fast.

Compromises forced on him in the leadership transition became evident: on same-sex marriage and climate change.

This was followed by some unmanaged and ill-disciplined kite-flying that deeply disturbed many Liberals. Significant all-options-on-the-table GST reform was floated.

At one stage Mr Turnbull even suggested the Commonwealth might withdraw from funding public schools altogether in exchange for the states getting greater taxation powers.

The inevitable and varied retreats from these big ideas saw primary support for the Coalition plummet.

It fell five points in just two months — or "five f***ing points", as one Liberal ruefully remembers it — to 41 per cent.

It was even worse in some of the key seats, where Liberal support slumped into the mid-30s. Disillusionment had taken hold once again. Mr Turnbull's promise of new politics was elbowed by a rerun of old patterns.

Focus groups told the Liberal Party the Government appeared as disorganised as the Rudd-Gillard-Abbott incarnations before it. Gravity hurts.

But those two months between February and April 2016 damaged the Turnbull magical mystique and he has never recovered his public standing, notwithstanding the personal approval advantage he has retained over Bill Shorten, albeit narrowly at times.

"People want to like Malcolm but he keeps giving them reasons not to," one ALP insider says, noting Mr Turnbull has never been disliked as Mr Abbott or Julia Gillard were.

"They wanted Malcolm to be successful, hence those massive approval ratings at the start."

Since the end of September 2016, the Coalition has trailed Labor in the two-party preferred Newspoll.

No leader is perfect and menace is often afoot in politics. But, an old-timer Liberal opined, political judgment aids the escape as much as it helps avoiding trouble in the first place.

"Higher primates learn when they make mistakes, lower primates don't learn," was Arthur Sinodinos's description of a good leader when he was John Howard's formidable chief of staff.

A trust deficit now haunts Australian politics as it has done most of the past decade. And once again, a party of government has folk within it willing for the unthinkable: replacing a sitting prime minister.

Lower primates looking for a way out.

In recent times, both Labor and the Coalition have discovered the very least it takes to scrape into office.

For the ALP it's a primary vote of 38 per cent, which Ms Gillard was dealt in the inconclusive 2010 election. She had to negotiate victory by securing the support of crossbenchers.

For the Coalition, rock bottom victory requires a primary vote of 42 per cent, which Malcolm Turnbull achieved in 2016, snaffling a one-seat majority.

Since his uncomfortably close victory, which he blamed on Labor's "Mediscare" campaign, Coalition stocks have worsened. With a primary vote of just 37 per cent, where the most recent Newspoll has it, the Coalition would get spanked, being five points short of the absolute minimum.

So what's next?

The public, already exhausted by the revolving door leadership, is being conditioned by Mr Turnbull's internal enemies to anticipate another upset.

Agitation came this week in the form of the mischievously-named Monash Forum, a grouping that has been so ham-fisted in its hurried recruitment that it claims membership from folk in the Liberal right and the Nationals now claiming to have been roped in under false pretences.

Those shenanigans aside, one Liberal conservative who supported Mr Turnbull in the 2015 coup told the ABC many in the party would refuse to follow the PM over the cliff.

But if Mr Turnbull were shaken from the tree — or walked — who would be his replacement?

Julie Bishop and Peter Dutton would be likely contenders. The Foreign Minister remains a popular figure but Liberals say her lustre wouldn't linger under the glare of more leadership tumult. And few believe Mr Dutton has the full suite of skills required.

Despite his boosters, Mr Abbott is yesterday's man. Had he not so obviously sought to undermine Mr Turnbull since his ouster, he might've found his way back into Cabinet, his colleagues say.

And some of the young Turks who were once Abbott backers are now looking within their own generation for future leadership material.

While Tony Abbott is firmly out of the picture, Julie Bishop and Peter Dutton are the only possible contenders. ( AAP: Mick Tsikas )

But there are no obvious go-to options to replace Mr Turnbull in the short-term.

"Jesus, Abe Lincoln, Churchill and Menzies aren't available," one Liberal remarked sardonically.

"Or, as Malcolm Turnbull is putting it privately, there are no 'break glass in case of emergency' alternatives."

Rational calculation, combined with a grudging acceptance that there would be more damage in changing leaders yet again, suggest Mr Turnbull will hang on.

The May budget will be his last and best opportunity to restore some faith.

But it's a dangerous time for Malcolm Turnbull. Environmentally, politics changed in the post-2006 Facebook era. Both sides acknowledge social media — and the decline of mainstream media — has encouraged partisanship and distrust in institutions.

And as John Howard told Leigh Sales on Thursday night, the flat wage trajectory has caused an "irritable middle class".

Vengeful voters are no allies in handling a fractious, jumpy partyroom.

Malcolm Turnbull's best chance? That the partyroom holds together, the economy picks up, wages rise and that Bill Shorten stuffs up. How many of those does he control? Not many.