Judging by the 61-39 outcome, and the theory that all 36 members in the executive branch were loyal to their leader, the backbenchers in the caucus (by a margin of more than two to one) would have preferred that Abbott swung. Voting for (or against) a spill did not, of itself prove anything about which prime minister was preferred, but the Prime Minister had invested so much effort on defeat of the spill motion that one can more or less assume that a vote to spill was not only a cry of despair, but an affirmation of a want of belief in Abbott's capacity to change.

Backbenchers have been trying to sell Abbott and the policies of the government to voters, to opinion formers and to party members for eight months, and their despair was not mere recent panic about the state of opinion polls, or some feeling that Abbott had been a little unlucky from mid-January. It came from strong popular reaction to the budget and the strategy it contained, from hamfisted efforts to sell it by Abbott and his senior ministers, to widespread perceptions of unfairness, unpleasant surprises and broken promises by the party. by bluster, prevarication and denial by Abbott, from unnecessary and damaging self-indulgent flourishes by ministers and, particularly, the Prime Minister himself.

And, of course, consistent and persistent indications that the public was not buying the government's narrative, such as it was, or its explanations for why its actions were necessary, and of the Abbott's government's joining, in remarkably quick time, that long train of recent governments about whom voters were completely dismissive, condemnatory and cynical. As demonstrated not only by opinion polls, brawls with some of the government's strongest backers, and a realisation by rebellious senators that they actually increased their profile and their popularity by blocking the government, but, soon, serious reverses at state elections. The opinion polls suggest that after an election held tomorrow, about 30 of those who voted on Monday, including a number of ministers, would not be there. As Dr Johnson might have remarked, there is nothing like the imminent prospect of execution to wonderfully concentrate the backbench mind.

Voters might not be that interested in that "Canberra insider stuff", as Abbott insists. But they are equally uninterested in spin, or in claims that all is now well, and that every bad thing is behind us. The public knows a lame man, or a loser, when it sees one.

Abbott's incumbency factor may have secured a delayed dismissal, or a last final chance. That so many had abandoned all hope in the leader seems to have been particularly chastening. It may serve to slow, rather than hasten, the final acts, least of all by those who hope that something can be retrieved, for themselves and the party. It is obvious that only a few more prods will kill Abbott off. Yet those who want the party to be post-Abbott have reason to fear that they might suffer if they are seen to wield the knife, to be openly disloyal, or to leak proofs of his ways. But most observers doubt Abbott can either mend his leadership ways, or retrieve the party's fortunes. Why murder someone so determined on suicide? Let the blood be on his own hands.

This could be a mistake, given Abbott's sometime capacity for self-discipline, for example over four years of opposition. I doubt the public will change its mind about him – because it has made up its mind and stopped listening. But the next obvious breach of trust might be slower coming, if only because new caution about unilateral action, or captain's picks. Bad judgments may well continue, but with accomplices. Likewise, many of his most immediate moves will be ones designed to appease his critics, and, in that sense, should be more popular, whether with the public or the backbench.

But Abbott does not have a clean slate, or the capacity to act as if he has just been elected with great public hopes invested in him. If he has to abandon the most unpopular policies, whether on the pragmatic ground that he can't get Senate support or because he now admits them to be bad policy, he is still bound to a theory of the budget balance sheet.

The government knows that the overall economy is a reasonably precarious state, not likely to be helped by sharp contractions in government expenditure. Moreover commodity prices, business confidence and investment, and consumer confidence, are suppressed, even with historic low interest rates and a sharply declining exchange rate. The budget ahead, which may well be laid down before the strategy and intended outcomes of the last budget are formally dead, buried and cremated, is promised to be mild on the middle class pocket, and focused on child care and small business incentives.

That might be popular, in the short term at least, in the electorate, but it will hardly please either government business constituencies which want drastic government cuts, smaller government and an attack on the culture of entitlement, as least so far as it affects the bottom half of the population.

Abbott is conflicted about doing anything seen as harsh, unpopular, unfair, or in breach of promise about no cuts to health, education, or welfare. On the other hand a good deal of his credibility in "addressing the mess we inherited from Labor" depends not only on the idea of being tough, prudent, and having a plan to arrest a growth in debt and bringing the budget back to surplus – all with precious moral or physical credit in the electoral bank, and in the shadow of a faltering economy.

He cannot simply hark back to the supposed chaos of the last Labor government (now, in any event, well able to be fairly compared with his own style), or to whatever material or spiritual satisfaction Australians have in having stopped boat people or carbon taxes. He seems to want to found his argument, as he was doing this week, on the idea that the current generation, or government acting in its interests, is ripping off future generations; he has a good deal more to do to make his argument convincing.

Mere debt to underwrite recurrent expenditure may be, as Harold Macmillan, a former British prime minister, said, like selling the family silver to pay the grocery bills.

But an infrastructure prime minister who spends (partly borrowed) money to build roads, or hospitals or schools is investing in the future, and the consequential debt on future generations of Australians is not "intergenerational theft". A good deal of public health expenditure (particularly spending in the community – the sort this government has been quickest to cut) is an investment in greater mobility, capacity to live in the community, and longer and happier lives – which is to say an investment, not money down the drain. Likewise with schools and universities, and not only in the money lent to students, but in the (declining) direct public investment made in the buildings, capital, staff and intellectual property of the providers.

Likewise the public service, whether at Commonwealth and state levels, is not to be seen as some entirely spoilt infant, contributing nothing but endlessly hoovering up vast sums of money gathered from the production of big and small businesses. In the new economies, public servants are themselves producers, knowledge workers and contributors to the national product, whether as workers in preschools, schools, centres of technical and further education, universities, in hospitals, health centres, nursing homes, and pathology laboratories, in science, research and institutions such as libraries, as soldiers, armed paramilitary border guards and as policemen. And, sometimes, as regulators, detached advisers, managers and discreet servants of politicians, carrying their wishes into effect.

None of this is ripping off the future to pay for the present, least of all when the big end of town is exporting its profits overseas.

The question for Liberals who want more security of tenure is whether a rescue, by someone else, is possible, and what circumstances will most favour the rescue mission. It could be that the feat will look the more impressive if Abbott has further lowered the prospects.