It's easy to think a change of leader will solve all problems, but the chain of unintended consequences of removing Tony Abbott could be on a par with those that Rudd's removal created, writes Malcolm Farnsworth.

Just 17 months ago, who would have thought that the destruction of Gillard and Rudd, and their replacement by a Coalition government with a majority of 30, would be followed so quickly by the conflagration of the past week?

Can it be that the history books will record that the coda to the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd years was the truncated prime ministership of Tony Abbott?

Recent events have highlighted the danger of prediction. A first-term government in Victoria was sent packing. The likely advent of the Palaszczuk government in Queensland was predicted by almost no one.

The turnaround in political fortunes of the Liberal governments in those two states has upset a number of political verities. Their demise has undoubtedly sharpened the survival instincts of federal MPs.

Nevertheless, it is remarkable that the Liberal Party could be seriously contemplating removing Abbott. They are in government, not opposition. Different standards apply. An assault on the leader is fraught with peril.

It appears that the initial moves against Abbott are coming from outside the ministry. Just as Kevin Rudd's downfall was initiated by factional heavies and junior MPs, so it seems that Liberal backbenchers are leading the charge against Abbott.

It's hardly surprising. Local MPs are closest to the action when it comes to complaints about budget cuts to health, education and other services. They are the first to hear the mutterings of contempt for politicians seen to be arrogant and out of touch.

All three backbenchers who spoke up last night - Warren Entsch, Dennis Jensen and Mal Brough - hold reasonably safe seats. Multiple reasons may explain their actions. In Brough's case, resentment that his six years of ministerial experience in the Howard government wasn't recognised with a post in the Abbott administration may be the key.

Other Liberals may feel that the concrete has set for Abbott, that the electorate's perception of his character and ideological preoccupations has passed the point of malleability. Better to remove the cancer now, they may think.

They may feel they are doomed to defeat under Abbott's leadership. "This is different to Rudd," some have already been saying. Rudd was still popular when he was deposed, Abbott isn't, they argue. Others have suggested Abbott be removed over a period of months so that the electorate can be acclimatised to his impending demise.

It sounds like wishful thinking.

Deposing Abbott is just as likely to lead to a chain of unintended consequences on a par with those that Rudd's removal created.

What does a defeated 57-year-old Abbott do? How is this Liberal warrior likely to take the humiliation of his removal and its consequent rewriting of his place in history? Does he take up a ministry under his successor? Leave the parliament?

Or does he hang around and plot?

Other casualties will result from destroying Abbott. Whoever knifes him will probably take out Joe Hockey as well. The accommodations between Julie Bishop, Malcolm Turnbull and Scott Morrison seem to have no place for Hockey as Treasurer. What does the 49-year-old Hockey do if he's also supplanted? How would he channel his resentments over the curtailment of his career?

Demotions and promotions would follow the dumping of Abbott. This will exercise the minds of many ministers and parliamentary secretaries over the coming days. The powerful pull of the status quo may stop some of them from joining the stampede to kill the king.

The parliamentary Liberal Party is likely to be seething with resentments and bitterness if Abbott is deposed. Like the ALP caucus after 2010, the dynamics will have fundamentally altered. New fault lines and alliances will emerge. Like the ALP, the Liberal Party runs the risk of killing off more than one leader next week.

And what if the replacement turns out unable to reverse the Government's fortunes? A faltering Bishop would soon be tarred with the brush of Gillard. Liberals might well ponder the embarrassment of her five months as Shadow Treasurer in 2008-09, a period that casts doubt on her leadership credentials.

Equally, a faltering Turnbull would be reminiscent of his less than stellar performance as opposition leader in 2008-09. Remember Godwin Grech? And who thinks the Liberal Party's problem with climate change will go away if Turnbull takes over?

Imagine a new leader in six months with the same poll figures as Abbott has now. What does the Liberal Party do then?

It's easy to think that a change of leader will solve all problems. After all, Paul Keating managed to win Labor another term. But he had a decade of government and credibility behind him when he knocked over Bob Hawke.

Only once have the Liberals replaced a federal leader in government. It was 1971 and the party-room produced a tied vote that led John Gorton to surrender his leadership to William McMahon. The resulting government quickly became a laughing stock and McMahon an election loser now regarded as woeful by all sides. It's not a good precedent.

We focus so much on the individual and personal. Undoubtedly, leadership matters. But often in parliamentary politics the problem goes deeper than that. What if it's the party's basic philosophical stance? What if it's a general failure to explain and persuade by a political class that couldn't convincingly tell a bedtime story?

Most importantly, though, what would the dumping of Abbott say to the electorate?

The anti-Abbott brigade would have us believe the electorate is willing the party to remove him, that he is so detested and mistrusted that only good can come from his removal.

They may be right. Voters may already regard the Government with the same disdain they displayed for Gillard and Rudd. The debt and deficits issue is just one where the pudding has been so over-egged that it's not taken seriously by an electorate that knows we're not Greece down-under.

But possibly the electorate will see it another way. Perhaps they will regard the Coalition as a joke if it emulates the Labor model and removes a prime minister before his first term is up. The ridicule, disdain and disgust could be especially potent. The display of disloyalty could be lethal, especially in light of Rudd and Gillard.

If a change is to take place, Liberal MPs might well ask themselves what policies will change. What will a new leader do with the looming May budget? How will a new leader handle the Senate all-sorts?

And there's the rub. Underneath the easy personal judgments, there are serious questions about the policy direction of the government. They have barely been raised so far.

Whether Turnbull, Bishop and others raise these issues in the coming days remains to be seen. They may simply frame the contest as one of competing styles of communication.

If issues and philosophy emerge as dominant themes in the next few days, the reaction of the ideological warriors, particularly on the right, may be the real determinant of the outcome of any ballot. For every Liberal who wants to move to the centre, there seems to be a hardliner who wants to dig in further.

We will see what the coming days hold. Clearly, nerves have been unsettled and that can lead to panic. Equally, the senior members of the Government may circle the wagons and repel the assault. After all, there is as yet no declared candidate.

Polls indicate the public is hostile to Abbott's form of politics at the moment. He grates in so many ways.

But an unpopular leader holding firm might be preferable to the image of instability, panic and disloyalty that a decapitation could precipitate.

Malcolm Farnsworth publishes AustralianPolitics.com. Follow him on Twitter at @mfarnsworth.