Predicting the future is risky at the best of times.
We don't know what's around the corner.

The only way
that the Coalition may replace Mr Abbott would be if
his rating in the polls kept falling and it looked
like the Coalition would lose the next election.
At the moment - it's too early to be able to make a
rational judgement in that regard. Anything can happen
in politics, as we all know. And the Coalition still have
a few years to go before the next election. We have to wait
and see what develops.

Just say that the prediction that Tony Abbott will not lead the Coalition to the next election is correct; the Coalition will be leaderless because there is nobody else in that organisation who is capable of leading. Like all political organisations in Australia, the Coalition is loaded with third rate people who are not fit to have their snouts in the trough as back benchers, let alone lead the country.

The terminally confused Shorten is the best that Labor could come up with, and the pseudo conservative Abbott is the best the Coalition could find. And, before people start talking about Turnbull, that wealthy socialist is in the wrong party; he tried to join Labor once, and that is where he really belongs. As for Hickman’s naming of Hockey…jeez!

So, like it or not, the Coalition and the rest of us are stuck with the dud Abbott.

Of course, Syd Hickman had nothing to say about the two most incompetent idiots ever to attempt ‘leadership’ in Australia – Rudd and Gillard – but that doesn’t make him wrong about Abbott; and Abbott has proved that nothing good will come out of our now worn out, incestuous political class. Rudd and Gillard were hopeless; Shorten is in a permanent daze because he never expected to get the job he is incapable of doing, and Abbott – more importantly, because he is now supposed to be leading the country – has proven to be an absolute dud who is continuing the usual betrayal of Australians by the political class.

Now, Syd Hickman is clearly anti-Coalition: his naming of Hockey and Turnbull proves his leftism. But he is right about Abbott

The confusing posts here miss one rather important event.
The whole thing is quite likely to be taken out of the hands of politicians.
The rumblings that you have been hearing about rising unemployment
from all parties, will possibly be upon us by the time of the election.

Figures that are being calculated indicate a significant rise in energy
costs. The Gladstone plant owners have refused gas contracts to domestic suppliers.
The governments have refused to reserve supply for domestic use.

If interest rates rise in the US then there will be an almost
immediate closing of US tight oil production.

The effect here will be a large rise in energy prices.
Which of course means higher unemployment.
The governments have been warned of this but prefer to ignore it.
To make matters worse both parties want a large increase in population.
This will require emergency management of a very difficult problem.
Who would you rather manage that ? Abbott or Shorten ?

At present they do not understand that the game has already started.

Welcome to the post peak oil world.

Based on the accuracy of Syd,s predictions in previous articles Abbott is completely safe.

Not a well argued case for the replacement of Abbott. If he goes, it will be at the hands of his parliamentary colleagues. Given that he has apparently silenced some of the best operators in the Government (perhaps because he sees them as a threat) I would assume there is a lot of ill will building. Added to that is his poor performance and alienation of the media. Given the Labor train wreck last year the Government should be doing much better and as Abbott is tightly in control of everything he has to shoulder the blame.

Actually Syd, you were too kind. The case against Abbot is actually much stronger than you suggest. Whether that is enough to have him deposed by his colleagues is a moot point. Many of the commenters above seem to suggest that because the Rudd Gillard duo were horrendous that somehow justifies Abbot retaining the top spot. A curious piece of logic.

Abbot was a brilliant Opposition leader in that he destroyed any public perception that Labor were worth retaining. But being good in opposition does not necessarily make a good leader. For the reasons you mentioned (and plenty of others) he has totally failed to make the transition to governing in the interests of the whole country.

Just to take one illustration. He and his appalling FM Bishop have managed to alienate the Chinese and the Indonesians; make us a laughing stock in the UN because of our pro_israel stance; and disregard not only our international obligations under the Convention on Refugees, but also treat us like children with Morrison's non-communicative nonsense at his non briefings.

It also appears that we have a navy that is incapable of knowing where it is at any given moment. I don't blame Abbot for that, but I do resent being taken for a fool in having Morrison trot out a manifest lie about being "accidentally" in Indonesian waters.

Abbot's hubris is what will result in his downfall. Unlike you Syd, I wouldn't hazard a time frame, but it couldn't come soon enough.