Former prime ministers give new prime ministers remarkably consistent advice about leading the country. Keep your eye on the prize, your focus on the big things you want to leave as a legacy. So what can Tony Abbott be thinking?



“When a government has a large majority it is best advised to use that majority to achieve a major policy advance,” wrote John Howard when asked about the lessons of his success in introducing the GST. “Big majorities never last, so political capital should be spent on a good cause.”



In 2010, defending his record in comparison with that of the first Rudd government, he returned to the theme.

"You have to spend political capital on reforms," he said. "I was absolutely determined to do that.”



Paul Keating, in his very different rhetorical style, advanced the same view during his interviews with Kerry O’Brien on the ABC last year.



''I always believed in burning up the government's political capital, not being Mr Safe Guy, you know?



''You get one chance to do something about native title. You get perhaps one chance in your life to do something about a republic. You get one chance, your chance, to build a piece of the political architecture in the Pacific. I wasn't going to give those up.''



In other words, implementing change inevitably annoys or disadvantages some people, it can reduce a leader’s popularity and erode trust, so it’s best to concentrate on the big stuff.



Tony Abbott doesn’t seem to be listening.



A quick whip around draws up a long list of groups this government has deeply upset in recent weeks.



There are migrant groups, the Jewish lobby, many indigenous Australians and countless others more concerned about the freedom of Australian citizens to go about their daily lives without suffering racial abuse or intimidation than they are about Andrew Bolt’s freedom of speech.



There are republicans and, well, pretty much everyone, really, except maybe David Flint and George Brandis, who think the idea of reintroducing knights and dames is anachronistic and a whacky indulgence for a monarchist prime minister who should really have more important things on his plate.



There are seniors’ organisations, financial planners and consumer groups who have protested so loudly about the proposed winding back of consumer protection laws for financial advisers that the finance minister, Mathias Cormann, has had to put them on “pause”.



And there are more than 50 charities, including World Vision, the RSPCA, Lifeline, Wesley Mission Victoria and the RSPCA, that are pleading with the government to retain the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission.



Are these the fights upon which Tony Abbott really wants to expend his political capital?



The changes to the Racial Discrimination Act are opposed even by some on his own side and leave the impression the government somehow condones bigotry.

With a nice simile, the Conversation’s Michelle Grattan said this week the RDA may not be ideal but changing it is “rather like punching a hole in an asbestos shed – a stable if not ideal structure suddenly turns into a hazard, its particles scattered with unpredictable risk. It would be easier and better to leave well alone”.



The reintroduction of knights and dames is an utterly friendless manoeuvre. Even John Howard doesn’t think it’s a good idea. It’s only upside has been an outburst of national hilarity at the prime minister’s expense.



The financial advice changes appear to be putting the interests of the banks ahead of the interests of the little guy and it’s hard to see the merit in reducing so-called “red tape” for charities if the charities themselves don’t want it to go.



Are these the changes upon which a leader should expend capital if he has just spent five years trying to overcome the impression he is a bit of a zealot and supplant it with the assurance that he “governs for all Australians”?



And, in particular, are these the changes upon which a new government wants to expend capital if it is already trailing in the opinion polls, and before it has even begun to implement the truly difficult parts of its election agenda, such as spending cuts to reshape the budget and eventually return it to surplus?

