Like most words, “Whitlamesque” means different things depending on which side of politics is using it. From the Liberals it stands for recklessly extravagant. For Labor people, it is an expression of boundless ambition, likely to be uttered in hushed, admiring tones.

This week, Malcolm Turnbull will register at least one achievement. He will overtake Gough Whitlam on the list of longest-serving prime ministers. If he were to be removed soon afterwards, as is now being discussed in some quarters of the Liberal Party, what would “Turnbullesque” come to mean? My suspicion is the definitions used by both sides would be similar – for Turnbull, depressingly so.

It is hard not to feel a little sorry for the man. On Tuesday, emerging from his party room meeting, he glowed with satisfaction. After months of squabbling, Coalition MPs had backed his energy policy. Across the land, reporters hailed it as an important victory. But by the end of the week, Turnbull was facing questions about his leadership. His smile was still there, but it had lost its sincerity.

That the Coalition might be about to tear itself apart over climate again is an indication of insanity. The symmetry is incredible. In 2010, Turnbull crossed the floor to vote with Labor on climate policy – after losing the Liberal leadership to Tony Abbott. Now, having lost the Liberal leadership to Malcolm Turnbull, Tony Abbott is preparing to cross the floor to vote with Labor on climate policy.

Some reckon those who don’t read history are doomed to repeat it. They’re wrong. Humans – or at least politicians - are stupider than that. Turns out they’re doomed to repeat history even if they lived through it themselves, and pretty recently.

One of the oddest, saddest things about Australia’s climate debate is that it has been based almost entirely on a series of verbal fictions. Every couple of years we get a new code word or phrase that means nothing to voters, but furiously divides our politicians. Right now it’s the National Energy Guarantee – before that the “emissions intensity scheme”. And before that it was a carbon price, or perhaps a carbon tax. I’d be surprised if more than a hundred Australians could explain the difference between the four. And yet each, for at least a few months, has taken on mystical significance for Coalition MPs.

Abbott last week described explanations of Turnbull’s policy as “merchant bankers' gobbledygook”. It was an incisive line, but not in the way Abbott meant. For voters, everything that is said in this debate is gobbledygook. That should be cause for concern. But for Abbott, it is an opportunity. Wherever complexity and confusion prosper, Abbott sees the chance to insert fiction.

The latest victim of his fantasies is the Paris climate change agreement. In Abbott’s mouth, passing legislation in the Australian Parliament to deliver on an agreement signed by an Australian prime minister – him – became “surrendering our sovereignty” to “the green bureaucrats of Paris”.

It is regularly said that Abbott, desperate for revenge, will stop at nothing to tear Turnbull down. That is true. But Turnbull is equally desperate, just in the opposite direction. He will do anything to deny Abbott his kill.

Abbott has repeatedly said he would “rather change the policy than change the leader”. So, on Friday, Turnbull changed the policy. Abbott’s response? Changing policy was “no way to run a government”. Abbott deserves criticism because he changed his position in the space of days, to keep up the attack. But then Turnbull, too, changed his position within days, to evade the attack. Cynicism is on high-rotation.

Labor has played a cynical game too. It refused to deal with Turnbull until the Coalition had sorted itself out, knowing the trouble that might cause. But it also had a good reason to point to. Turnbull wanted to legislate his low target for cutting emissions, locking in a poor result.

Now Turnbull has backed away from that pledge. That could mean a Labor government might easily raise the target. If that is the case, and Labor is given what it wants, it will face a genuine choice between politics and policy. Agree to the policy it demanded, or find another reason to disagree, and vote with Abbott to undermine Turnbull? My own feeling is that the Liberals might self-destruct whatever Labor does. Bill Shorten should forget about trying to game the politics.

If the Liberals do implode, that, too, will be based on a fiction. It will be presented as necessary for election victory. But if the Coalition was genuinely interested in winning the election, there was an easier way. It could have let the Prime Minister lead from the beginning.

The reality is that Turnbull is not being attacked for his commitment to Paris. Abbott was committed to Paris. Large parts of the Liberal Party have never accepted Turnbull. He is being punished for not being one of them.

Peter Dutton would have gotten away with the same policy. A conservative warrior, he is now being mentioned as the most likely successor to Turnbull. This is a stunning turn of events. After last week’s national denunciation of racism, imagine that the Coalition responds by installing Dutton, a man who has regularly deployed race as a political tool. “Turnbullesque” may not be destined to become a compliment. But “Duttonesque” should send shivers through us all.

Sean Kelly is a political commentator and writer, and a former adviser to prime ministers Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard.