Now there’s a precedent to give Tony Abbott hope.

So spectacular has been the unravelling of the Abbott project in the first weeks of this year that its electoral demise is seen by voters and politicians alike as axiomatic — especially if Tony Abbott remains at the helm.

But history teaches us to be wary of such verities. What is undisputed, though, is that the Prime Minister’s personal numbers are diabolical.

Abbott may have secured the breadth of his party room on Monday but he is surely under no illusions about the depth or durability of his 61-39 victory.

Many who voted no on Monday admit their central objection to granting a spill was haste.

By one estimate, 10 or more of those on the backbench who voted no, were “very close” to voting yes and only stuck with Abbott out of respect for appearances — their own mainly.

One explained that these MPs had reasoned that voters might object to the summary execution of a first-term prime minister even if they disrespected him — Abbott’s net approval rating now stands at minus 38 (those who approve 29 per cent, minus those who disapprove 67 per cent) according to the last Fairfax-Ipsos poll.

Despite the fact that two-thirds of voters (according to the same survey) not only dislike the PM but fully expect his party to neck him before the election, MPs worried that sacking Abbott in early February, before establishing a sustained public case for it, would be seen as a denial of “natural justice” or more commonly, a fair go.

Clearly, Abbott rode this “fair go” sentiment for all it was worth, pleading with wavering MPs variously over the weekend to give him “six months” or “a few more months” or “until Christmas” to turn things around.

John Howard pulled a similar emotio-electoral lever in 2007. Having asked Alexander Downer to take soundings in cabinet about a late switch to Peter Costello, Howard then told Downer that he would step down if the ministers demanded it, but he would let it be known that they had asked for him to step down.

In other words, you’ll carry the blame in the Liberal heartland for knifing a four-term Liberal hero.

They backed off.

An earlier period of the Howard journey might give Abbott greater comfort because it shows he went into the valley of death also. Abbott’s January-February period may have been the worst start to a political year of any recent government, but Howard’s March 2001, was scarcely better and it was an election year.

The Coalition’s vote had tanked. While Newspoll at the time did not calculate a two-party-preferred vote, it is clear Howard was further behind the Kim Beazley-led ALP than Abbott is now.

The crisis prompted then Liberal Party president Shane Stone to write a memo warning that the Howard government appeared “tricky, mean and out of touch”. That memo was leaked in May causing a storm and fuelling internal tensions.

The ABC’s 7.30 Report at the time reported: “It also warned Prime Minister John Howard of the feeling among Liberal MPs that he and Treasurer Peter Costello had gone out of their way to alienate traditional Liberal supporters and that the government had to be ‘dragged screaming’ to fix its mistakes.”

The parallels with the situation facing Abbott are striking.

Just as Stone had warned in 2001, Abbott’s support problem now is overwhelmingly located in his heartland.

Amazingly, aided by the rise of terrorism and the arrival of Tampa, Howard went on to win an election on November 10 the very same year — actually increasing his majority.

Abbott will be remembering that about now. But his colleagues might note a different lesson: That if they had replaced Howard with Costello in 2006, they might have survived in 2007 and avoided a lot of pain on the way.