Tony Abbott’s return as federal president of the Liberal Party may look, on the surface, like an ordinary party appointment. But I think there may be a deeper political meaning behind it. Abbott is not an ordinary retired politician. He was once prime minister of Australia, was later removed through internal party conflict, and then lost his seat of Warringah. Someone with that experience understands the Liberal Party’s internal power structure, factional relationships, media rhythm and conservative voter psychology very well. So his return to a central party position is unlikely to be merely symbolic.
I also have another observation. People who have lost power are often not fully reconciled to that loss. By “loss”, I do not only mean electoral defeat. I also mean the psychological and political experience of being pushed out of the centre of power, while still believing that one has a political mission. Abbott was replaced by Malcolm Turnbull in 2015, and then lost his own seat in 2019. For someone who once reached the position of prime minister, that cannot simply be treated as a normal career setback. If he still believes he has a responsibility to the country, to the Liberal Party, and to the conservative cause, then it is difficult for him to truly leave politics. He may have left parliament, but psychologically and politically he may not have accepted that as the end.
I have noticed that since last year, Abbott has been deliberately increasing his public exposure. He has built his own mailing list and publishing channel, and he regularly sends out political commentary and views. The reason I paid particular attention to this is that I often receive his emails myself. So this is not just something I read once in the news from the outside. It is something I have seen happening continuously in front of me. He is not merely appearing for the occasional interview. He is rebuilding his own public communication system. A person who has truly retired does not necessarily need to do this. But a person who intends to influence political direction again certainly does.
Modern politics is not only about parliamentary seats and formal party positions. It is also about mailing lists, subscribers, media circulation, think-tank platforms and social media presence. These things may look scattered, but in substance they are all ways of regathering political attention. A mailing list is especially important because it allows a politician to bypass traditional media and party hierarchy, and speak directly to supporters. If a politician can send views regularly to a stable group of readers, he is constantly reminding the public that he is still present, that he still has judgement, and that he still has a political line.
So my basic judgement is that Abbott’s most realistic role for now is not immediately to become Liberal Party leader again, but to become a kind of second centre of power inside the party. The official Liberal leader is chosen by the federal parliamentary party room, and Abbott is not currently a federal MP, so institutionally he cannot directly become parliamentary leader at this point. But political power does not exist only in formal positions. If someone can influence party direction, candidate selection, grassroots mobilisation, media agenda and conservative sentiment, then even without formally sitting in the leader’s chair, he can still become a very powerful political figure.
This also explains why the federal presidency is a useful position for him. It is not the parliamentary leadership, but it does sit close to party organisation, campaign infrastructure and internal party machinery. For Abbott, this role allows him to re-enter the organisational core of the Liberal Party without looking too eager to seize power. He can begin by influencing the party from the organisational and grassroots level, rather than openly challenging the current leader from day one.
I think Abbott now has two possible paths.
The first possibility is that he becomes dissatisfied with the current leadership style and eventually openly seeks to return to the top position. This path is direct, but it is not very realistic in the short term. He would first need to re-enter federal parliament. Without that, there is no formal institutional path for him to become party leader. Even if a by-election, a safe seat, or a future federal election gives him an opportunity, he would still need to persuade Liberal MPs and voters that he is not simply repeating the old pattern of internal party conflict, but offering a new direction for the party.
The second possibility is more interesting. He may not openly seek power at the beginning. Instead, he may use more subtle political methods to place pressure on the current leadership. For example, he could push hard on sensitive issues, forcing the current leader to keep shifting between the moderate wing and the conservative base. Or through grassroots organisation, public commentary and factional networks, he could gradually become the person who appears to speak more clearly, more firmly and more authentically for traditional Liberal values. Then, if the current leader performs poorly, or if the Liberal Party continues to struggle in elections and polling, Abbott could create a narrative that he did not choose to come back, but that the party had reached a point where it needed him to return and restore order.
This is what I mean by the possibility of being “forced” back into leadership.
Politically, this second path may actually be more effective. If Abbott shows his ambition too early or too obviously, it could easily provoke resistance inside the party and remind the public of the Liberal Party’s long history of internal leadership fights. Australian voters are quite sensitive to this kind of leadership instability. If he appears too ambitious, he weakens his own legitimacy. But if he first presents himself as a party rebuilder, a defender of conservative values, and a voice for the grassroots, then if a leadership crisis emerges later, he will be in a much stronger position.
There are still major limits. Abbott’s strengths are experience, name recognition, political combat skills and appeal to the conservative base. But his weaknesses are just as clear. His political image is very strong and very divisive. He may be able to reactivate the Liberal Party’s conservative base, but it is much less clear whether he can expand the party’s appeal among centrist voters, women, younger voters and urban moderates. The Liberal Party’s real problem may not simply be that it lacks a strong conservative figure. It may be that it has not yet found a new story capable of connecting traditional conservatism with modern Australian society.
So my current prediction is that Abbott has a real chance of becoming an actual centre of power inside the Liberal Party, but the chance of him formally becoming party leader again is still relatively low unless the party enters a serious crisis. He looks more like a potential kingmaker than a king ready to return immediately. But politics often works in this way. A person first returns as an adviser, president, elder figure or organiser. He then slowly gains control over organisation and agenda. If the situation later falls into disorder, he may move from behind the scenes to the front.
For that reason, Abbott’s return should not be treated as an ordinary piece of party news. It looks more like a signal that the internal power structure of the Liberal Party is being adjusted. The real thing to watch is not whether he immediately challenges the current leader, but whether he gradually changes the direction of the party and forces the current leadership to move around his rhythm. If that happens, then even without formally becoming party leader, Abbott will already have returned to the centre of Liberal Party power.
Discover more from Geoffrey Chen
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.