The accidental prime minister is no accident.

One of the quirky conventions of the national parliament is for a newly appointed speaker to feign resistance as they are dragged by two colleagues to be sworn in. Resistance to promotion is seen as a good thing, but it is also a Machiavellian metaphor for the behaviour during many political careers – to progress your career, then never disclose your true ambition and always wait to be asked, even if you’ve organised the asking.

There are 220 ambitious politicians in Canberra to contend with and a covert strategy for promotion works far better with colleagues than crass self-indulgent ego.

When considering the recent leadership spills of the government it’s perhaps insightful to consider the dark art of Machiavellian politics and not be seduced by commentators bewildered by the Peter Dutton’s ridiculous blundering bull in a china shop attempt at snatching the leadership. One should look to the shadows to see who was encouraging or inciting the crass politics to determine what really went on.

There is a lot familiar with the demise of Malcolm Turnbull with another former member for Wentworth, John Hewson; therefore, considering these two aligned history has merit when trying to solve the riddle of what may have politically happened over the last week, which may have started even earlier than that.

Both men came to politics with overt ambition, both wanted a different thinking and behaviour with the manner of political debate, both considered themselves above the tawdry visceral aspects of politics, both could not provide essential venom in political fights, and both wanted to gentlemanly raise the level of policy discussion rather than polarising argument. Both men came to politics from similar backgrounds and education, and both never considered themselves amongst equals – they weren’t of the Liberal Party and only used it to achieve their ambition.

In early 1994, when Hewson’s leadership was under attack from others with a baton in their knapsack, he called a meeting of confederates and advised them he will be facing a two-pronged attack on his leadership. The first challenge would come in May and be the patsy, with the real challenge coming later in the year. The meeting deduced the first challenge would come from Bronwyn Bishop who was transferring from the senate to the house of representatives. She was highly popular in the broader electorate and there was a push to have her ambition for leadership tested – except she delivered a significant reduction in the Liberal primary vote at the by-election, killing off her popularity and her ambition.

The first challenge still came though, from the ‘dream team’ of Alexander Downer and Peter Costello. Downer, who knew about the Hewson proposition because he was at the meeting, was a shock candidate, and Costello, who only ever faced one party room ballot during his celebrated career and lost, were the new era of politics supposedly killing off the Howard Peacock years of dysfunction.

After Hewson stood aside, the dream team were installed unopposed yet it wasn’t long before the undermining and sniping began dragging down Downer’s reputation and authority. The real challenge for leadership was still on and emerging from the shadows was the savvy political master wanting to come to the leadership with zero blood on his hands.

John Howard was elected unopposed in early 1995, and immediately changed the dynamics of the parliament and went on to achieve a Liberal victory in 1996, causing the over confident Labor Party years of distress and he served as our second longest, and possibly greatest prime minister.

Now come forward twenty-four years.

Turnbull, ever the pleasant gentleman who stated he wanted to raise the tenor of the parliamentary debate, asked for more civility in the parliament and during the 1996 campaign refused to engage to fight the Labor lies with aggressive campaigning. No one told him that a Jobs and Growth campaign was never going to combat the aggressive campaigning of Labor and its dolts like Get Up and the Unions – he said nothing to the voters and the voters responded.

Turnbull won the election, just; but he has since been ridiculed by every aspect of the community and the media – apparently, we don’t crave a gentle man as our leader.

When the pragmatic hard heads of the party realised Shorten is vulnerable and only needed to be exposed as the weak-kneed chameleon that he is, they lost confidence in their leader’s verve to get the job done – way too nice for the political fight. Turnbull’s political judgement was questioned and his decision making ridiculed. Turnbull was tagged with not being the prime minster of or for the people, yet his achievements are many.

The leadership change was never about the achievements, it was about the political fight and Turnbull was identified as incapable of providing the fight needed to win.

So, enter the patsy to destroy the leadership.

Dutton lost the first round and then the very next day advised he would ignore the result and not stop until there was a change of leader. He wrongly believed his ambition would be rewarded by his colleagues but failed to recognise he was just the patsy – the real challenger was in the shadows, waiting, not wanting to drip blood from his hands.

And so the machinations of politics swiftly lead to another leadership challenge. Marginal seat members were skittish, ministers showed their true colours by resigning and forcing an outcome. Forty-three members signed a partition, some mentioned why, including a comment – ‘this is for Brendan (Nelson)’. Turnbull was then defeated.

The question to ask is – who was standing in the shadows?

Prior to this momentous leadership disruption there was a clue – there was a media conference with Turnbull, Cormann and Morrison advising tax cuts for business were now rejected as policy. Morrison placed his arm around Turnbull and claimed his job was to make Turnbull look good and he was ambitious for him – Turnbull’s responsive was symbolic of his self-focus, brushing off the false praise of his colleague as if to recognise who was standing in the shadows.

Dutton’s bullish behaviour would never have been supported by the electorate and he was never going to be elected leader and that was always the plan. Wreck the leadership and have a candidate with no blood on his hands emerge and win the vote of colleagues.

Now the over confident Labor Party’s worst nightmare will be realised. They’ll try and tag Morrison with all that was Turnbull, but as the economy improves and the state of the books improves so will the fortunes of the government. Labor will now struggle to match Morrison and the shift in the electorate to favour the government will follow as they have been wanting to do since Turnbull knifed Abbott.

The election won’t be anytime soon and most likely after Frydenberg’s election budget in early May next year, the government will move straight into an election with the promise of an excellent budget result for Australia against the nightmare of Labor’s tax and spend policies with its crassness of community polarisation which Shorten is constantly pushing.

Prime Minister Morrison in the meantime will talk about the electorate’s primary needs and focus on the drought (food and water) energy (warmth) and a strong economy (job security).

Morrison should also be talking about population policy which could include immigration, border security and community safety. He perhaps will talk big picture issues like infrastructure projects and building stronger communities. He will no doubt reinforce the government’s increased spending in education and health killing the Labor lie of spending cuts, and perhaps he’ll build a narrative about Australia and its people of having the aspiration for the nation as much as we do ourselves.

It’s the same Liberal Party message but without the terrier inciting language of Abbott, nor the hardly recognisable stumbling posh gentlemanly narrative of Turnbull.

Morrison can win the next election and he may go on to serve Australia well. Stepping out of the shadows after playing the Machiavellian card masterly. This is no accident he is prime minister, yet so many commentators believe it to be so, for they do not study history which has a reputation of repeating itself.

Well played Scott Morrison, Prime Minister.