Forget the wing - put Abbott at five-eighth

These characteristics are representative of a homophilous monomorphic thought leader which is not a bad thing in a business or corporate head but can be dangerous for a political head.

Where Mr Abbott fails is in his capacity to accumulate two additional characteristics that could turn him into an electable polymorphic heterophil.

Mr Abbott is not innovative. Nor does he appear capable of becoming innovative when Australian society is in need of change (as it is right now) or of being less innovative when it does not require change.

He seems to underpin his ideological position with the notion that all change is bad.

This is not the traditional conservatism of Australian sociopolitics that embraced change through innovation at times of necessity.

The traditional norms of earlier Australian conservatism required thought leaders to be a separate bunch from the innovators and for thought leaders to contain their enthusiasm so that innovators were seen to be as valuable.

Malcolm Fraser, for example, spoke frequently of the need for diversity. In reconstructing the department of immigration after Gough Whitlam had bulldozed it, and including ethnic affairs in its remit, Fraser showed thought leadership that allowed the innovators to increase Australia's pool of skilled labour.

After 1983, when Fraser lost the treasury benches to Bob Hawke, remarkably unsuccessful interventions masquerading as innovation from the thought leaders began to surface. The Motor Industry Development Plan, or Button plan as it became known, was a government innovation designed to create a world-class competitive automotive industry. For the industry it was a disaster. Thought leadership and innovation from the same source did not work.

Paradoxically we have the situation today where we expect our thought leaders to also be innovators and our innovators to be erudite thought leaders – polymorphic heterophils.

Mr Abbott's monomorphic focus on specific issues during most of 2011 was a good strategy then but it will not hold for 2012.

He can no longer afford to act homophilously (preach to the choir) and expect to increase his coalition's vote.

The questions however, are whether or not he knows he is on the brink and whether thought leadership and innovation really matter.