And the most wantonly reckless and inexplicable decision of Abbott's career, the one that ignited this conflagration, was not anticipated by the colleagues who have known him since his capacity for occasional outbursts of wackiness prompted the Mad Monk nickname. Surely, after last year's knights and dames "captain's call", someone should have had the acumen to ask Abbott if he was planning anything that might provoke a little controversy in this year's awards. Now, the push to remove him is gathering such pace that it will prove unstoppable, if not at next week's party room vote, then in the weeks or months beyond. The hallmarks are familiar enough: shocking polls, columnists calling for his demise, demeaning placards at public gatherings, respected figures highlighting problems, others seizing the chance to be heard, and every phrase in every statement by the players being analysed for hidden meaning. One strength that Abbott still possesses is that, unlike the leadership turmoil that defined Labor in recent years, this is an uprising driven by the backbench, with no cabal of plotters in senior positions dictating tactics, and still no declared challenger.

But it is only a small comfort that the only viable candidate to replace him, Malcolm Turnbull, has clean hands, as does Turnbull's logical deputy, Julie Bishop. What Abbott desperately needed this week was to produce a plan to regain the confidence of an unsentimental electorate with a newly acquired penchant for tossing out poorly performing governments after a single term. What he delivered was a plan to buy time and try to stave off a party room revolt, a plan that will do little to change voter perceptions. The prepared text of his National Press Club address was replete with meaningless slogans such as "economic management is in our DNA". The policy offerings were underwhelming: the prospect of more legislation to tackle "Islamist fanatics"; a vaguely populist response to anxiety about foreign purchases of homes and agricultural land; the promise of more money to meet childcare costs; and the reaffirmation of promised tax cuts for small business "at least as big as the 1.5 per cent already flagged". What was missing in the speech, and the Q&A that followed, was any explicit recognition that the government has failed the fairness test and is determined to make amends. The signature paid parental leave policy was being junked, not because it was too generous to those who didn't need assistance, but because "what is desirable is not always doable" in tough times when budgets are tight.

In short, there was nothing to change the conclusion that is propelling Abbott's demise: that recovery under his leadership is no longer as a possibility. One debate that is consuming the party ahead of Tuesday's party room meeting is whether he should be given more time, which could leave open the possibility of more candidates emerging. Andrew Robb, perhaps? But the key question is whether the Coalition should turn to Turnbull, the man who was defeated by Abbott by a single vote more than five years ago, and whose capacity for arrogance and impetuosity while leader made him enemies who will oppose his return. Aside from the reality that Abbott is not the only cause of the government's unpopularity, there are five reasons for MPs to think very carefully. The first is that the Coalition would be replicating the "Labor chaos" that was instrumental in delivering it government, and making a mockery of its promise that the adults are now in charge.

Sadly for Abbott, that pledge is already in tatters. The second was pressed by Abbott in answer to questions on Monday: that it's the people who vote prime ministers in, and the people who should vote them out. While this is literally not the case, recent experience federally and in Victoria is that voters take a dim view when the person they elected to lead is rejected by his or her colleagues in between general elections. The retort from backbenchers to the charge that they would be tearing down a leader legitimately elected by the people is that Abbott has already torn himself down. The third argument is that Turnbull, whose appeal is as the empathetic and articulate voice of the middle ground, will be compelled to move to the right to secure the support of the Liberal Party's conservatives. The obvious example is climate change, the issue that propelled his demise first time around. Here,Turnbull has already provided the answer: he will not be departing from the Coalition policy that was endorsed at the last election (which provides for stronger action if there is the global will for it). His advantage is that people know he takes climate change very seriously.

Then there is the question of whetherTurnbull would feel constrained in replacing those who haven't performed on the frontbench with those who deserve the opportunity. One certainty if Abbott goes is that Joe Hockey would be gone as treasurer, with an expectation that Scott Morrison would secure this key post. But is the man who presided over the world's hardest-line border protection policy the one to convince voters that the government does really care about the vulnerable? Finally, is the question of how Turnbull would deal with the "barnacles" that continue to alienate voters, such as the GP co-payment and changes to the pension. The argument that a good government has lost its way won't wash. The bottom line is that the Coalition's problems are at least as much about policy, process and communication as they are about who is in charge. Tearing down Tony will only be the start of a very risky business. Michael Gordon is political editor of The Age.