By Toby Ralph February 9 2015

Photo: Can Tony Abbott realistically articulate a vision and unite a majority of the nation behind it, or, if not, who can? (AAP: Nikki Short)

Once raised, leadership doubts recur like cancer and remissions tend to be short. If Tony Abbott remains PM he needs to strap on his skates and articulate a real vision voters can get behind, writes Toby Ralph.

Politics is greed management - a process for balancing conflicting appetites to keep society civil while it grows.

We hire politicians to do necessary but unpopular things, so it is a kamikaze career. If they succeed they become disliked and dispensable, if they fail, despised and superfluous.

Thus elections and leadership spills are not about voting in a big new idea; they concern tossing a party or person out.

Prime Minister Tony Abbott was the antidote to Kevin Rudd who had been the foil to unpopular Julia Gillard, who previously had been the solution to the dysfunction of Kevin Rudd. Rudd was the mechanism to oust Howard who was the way to kick out Keating. Keating got rid of Hawke who threw out Frazer who dispatched Whitlam who turfed out the McMahon disaster and so on backward through our history books.

The principle merit of the contender is that they are not the incumbent until they become one, and all too soon find themselves circling the same drain.

Politicians, like pets, gently remind us life is finite.

While there are titillating indications of a new-found promiscuity among voters, there are three deeper reasons for this process of rapid political composting; the economic cycle, the brutal arithmetic of electioneering and the consequent failure of leadership.

We have had 115 years of Government in Australia. And about 60 per cent of the time conservatives have gripped the steering wheel.

When you step away from the scandal of the day, the collective wisdom of millions of often disengaged Australians has consistently delivered a left-leaning government to bring about social change when we feel we can afford it, or a right-leaning one to run the shop tightly when we are worried we can't.

Most of the time we choose a solid economy; social change is a luxury purchase with a shorter shelf-life.

Do enticing policies make a difference? Well yes. We hold the curious belief that when sectors bribe government it is corrupt, but when government bribes sectors it is democratic.

Do the ads, the debates, the launches, the photo-ops, the media bias, and the frenetic schedules of travelling teams change the result? Why yes they do - but it is a very small difference in comparison to the state of the economy and long-run perceptions of political performance.

With few exceptions, it's the economic cycle that determines which party wins government.

The crude mathematics of winning an Australian election are significant. In a typical election of 100 electors, 35 will vote Labor, and 35 Liberal. They are pretty stuck in their ways, and are unlikely to switch. That means that the race is between these two parties, but they are parallel in the polls.

There are another 10 people who are going to vote for a minority party. It could be Grey Power, it could be Green Power or it could be Cold Power. Their second preference goes to one of the major parties, but broadly, they split evenly between the two, meaning Liberal and Labor are still neck and neck.

There are a final 20 people left. They are the soft and swinging voters.

The key to understanding is to remember that these undecided voters are being forced to vote and that many would not head to the booth if they didn't face a fine for not doing so.

While an expert may be able to tell an American Cocker Spaniel from an American Water, a Boykin Clumber, English Clumber, Welsh Springer or Sussex Spaniel, to the disengaged they are all just dogs. Disengaged voters see politicians this way, as essentially the same and not to be trusted.

No matter who gets in, it's still going to be a dog.

In recent politics, irrespective of party, the skill of achieving majority consent for growth plans seems to be missing in action and good management is rare.

These largely disengaged voters don't support politicians, for them voting tends to be a negative rather than a positive deed. Their vote is an act of vengeance rather than a reward, and they believe that just about all politicians richly deserve punishment.

It is these people electioneers target, as they are persuadable. Campaigns encourage these voters to despise the other side more than they despise them. Each side argues that the other is unfit to run the country, and invariably they have a point.

The awful irony of compulsory voting is that the disengaged decide who runs the country; it's as inappropriate as letting Mike Tyson run a rape crisis centre.

A compounding problem, both in and out of election time is over-reliance on market research. Research tells us what Peter and Peggy from Penrith think about an issue, and the answer is invariably "bugger all".

While it is perfectly fine that the political sentiments of emotionally disconnected voters are often trite and ill-considered, when thousands of these inane attitudes are aggregated they form a cathedral of mindlessness that too often percolates into policies.

Populism can be a winner in the very short term but once an agglomeration of ill-considered ideas is reflected as policy and implemented, it tends to collapse rapidly, as it has little spine of principle, sense or vision to help it stand.

It turns leaders into gladhanders or sock puppets for haters.

Regrettably political research is increasingly being used to inform policy, rather than simply a way to align genuine vision with the cynicism of the disengaged.

Research should be an aid to decision making, not a guide to direction setting. It is a tool for management, not leadership. You can't lead by following.

As Henry Ford explained: "If I'd asked people they wanted, they'd have said faster horses."

Dependence on disengaged voters and shallow research to hold or gain power creates an environment in which true leadership is all but impossible.

Identifying reasons to throw out an incumbent and generating snappy slogans that encapsulate the promise have greater electoral impact, thus take priority over larger solutions.

I'm clear about what this Government stands against, but vague about what they stand for. Yes the country voted to Stop the Boats, but what was being started? Yes, we voted to Axe the Tax, but what was to be grown?

Gripes and undoings are twiddles, not the meat and potatoes of progress, but they are what we vote for.

What the country truly voted for was the removal of Kevin Rudd, but once dispatched the ratings of his nemesis began to slide, and haven't stopped since.

On the positive side the Free Trade Agreements have been formidable achievements, but little else comes to mind. I know where we've been, but am unsure where the Government wants to take us.

I'm equally vague about the plans of the Opposition other than keeping schtum until they get a turn.

A big idea is a small part of leadership; the larger trick is getting a majority to buy into that idea and accept taking steps toward it.

Then follows the irksome task of management; delivering that idea in a practical and sensible way.

In recent politics, irrespective of party, the skill of achieving majority consent for growth plans seems to be missing in action and good management is rare.

That needs genuine leadership, and if that requires a change of baton we should hardly be surprised.

In reality power is seized, not gifted by a gracious party room, and it's a bloody business.

The issue the Liberal Party is facing is can Mr Abbott realistically articulate a vision and unite a majority of the nation behind it, or, if not, who can?

That question may well go unanswered today, but if so will it really evaporate? Once raised, leadership doubts recur like cancer and remissions tend to be short.

If Mr Abbott is still Prime Minister this afternoon he needs to strap on his skates.

For while disunity is death, underperformance is suicide.

Toby Ralph is a marketing, strategy and communications consultant who has worked on nearly 50 elections across three continents.

Spills, thrills and Abbott's whole vision thing - The Drum (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)