The best chance of sound and honest government returning to Australia will be the emergence of, if not a grand coalition, a ‘triple entente’ between Pauline Hanson, Cory Bernardi and a restored Prime Minister Tony Abbott. This is of crucial importance to the future of the nation.

On this, four rulings have been handed down with their usual air of infallibility by a commentariat too often so wrong on fundamental issues − just think of the politicians’ republic, Turnbull, Brexit and Donald Trump. These rulings must be exposed as the furphies they so clearly are.

First, if the Coalition is defeated at the next election, it will not be because of Cory Bernardi or Pauline Hanson. It will be because of Malcolm Turnbull and the bedwetters, and what they represent − a privileged, out-of-touch political class consumed by self-interest, too often lacking commonsense, owing allegiance to powerbroker lobbyists and in lock-step with Labor and the Greens. This latter failing is clear from their foolish and hypocritical adherence to a global warming orthodoxy. Although marginally better than Labor’s, this is already causing record electricity charges and the de-industrialisation of the nation. It is also manifest in Marxist social policies, such as foisting gender fluidity on infants and also by constantly targeting their own base. The latest example of the government’s deviation from principle is the revelation by Senator Hinch that it was none other than Turnbull himself who suggested the emasculation of the ABCC legislation, something Abbott would never have done. (More newsworthy surely than confected thespian thuggery at question time.)

The second furphy is the comparison made between Cory and the Labor split. The point is, the DLP preferenced the Liberals; Bernardi will never preference Labor. Unlike those fictional ‘Delcons’, he knows that even a Coalition government led by the hard left will not be as deranged as Labor and the Greens because of constraints imposed internally, and sensibly, in writing by the Nationals.

The third is to dismiss Pauline as no more than populist. As with their assessment of Donald Trump, this is because she does not genuflect at the mere mention of free trade. For the elites, received policy such as free trade, global warming and gender fluidity has replaced religious belief. These policies are not to be subject to scrutiny, provided of course that the elites are exempt from any consequent hardship suffered by the general population. But while politicians world-wide declare their fulsome support for free trade, only Australia’s are so foolish as to actually apply this across the board to our detriment. So when Pauline sensibly refuses to follow them blindly, she is characterised as a populist, meaning, a religious heretic.

The fourth is to dismiss Bernardi as a traitor. From Winston Churchill down, through Joseph Cook, Billie Hughes and Joe Lyons, no one is constrained to stay in a party, especially when the party moves away from its principles and blatantly betrays its supporters. The cover of last week’s Spectator Australia captured what was happening, a ship deserting a sinking rat.

Abbott, Hanson and Bernardi do not have identical policies but there is a commonality between them. Strongly principled, the positions they take on current issues – energy, debt, the role of government, federation, welfare, education − are invariably unrelated to the current fashions which so excite the elites.

From the time that she emerged on the Australian political scene, Pauline has demonstrated her extraordinary courage, her plain speaking, her honesty and her integrity. Who can forget that slim, beautiful figure being almost carried by the police through hordes of demonstrating vagabond, layabout thugs? Even before her current resurgence, I have been with her, unannounced in the streets of towns in different states where she instantly became a magnet for the attention, interest and indeed affection of the locals, and not only the white population.

I first noticed Bernardi at a Senate committee hearing early in his first term. He agreed to speak at a function in Sydney where what he said and the way he said it so impressed young and old, Asians and Caucasians. In reviewing his book, The Conservative Revolution here, I mentioned that Anthony Albanese found aspects so offensive he demanded a denunciation from no less than the Abbott government. But as I said, much of what he had written would have attracted the support of the founders and the greatest leaders of the ALP.

But by daring to publish conservative views consistent with established Liberal principles, Bernardi was not only confirmed as so politically incorrect by the commentariat, he was declared persona non grata by the Liberal hard-Left. They had already arranged for him to be eased out of the ministry for merely relying on the ‘slippery slope’ argument concerning same-sex marriage, although the High Court had done the same to support its gratuitous opinion that the meaning of the relevant constitutional provision could be changed without a referendum.

The book also undermined the hard- Left’s endorsement of the lockstep syndrome, which means they rarely if ever reverse Labor’s ‘reforms’. G.K. Chesterton identified this phenomenon long ago when he said that while the business of the Left is to go on making mistakes, the business of conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected. As we know, only an exceptional leader resists this, a Thatcher, Reagan, Howard or indeed Abbott.

It is obvious that within their knapsacks, both Pauline and Cory possess their ‘bâton de maréchal’.

Tony Abbott, principled, private about his many good works and a natural in-touch leader still has the very ‘bâton de maréchal’ I had detected when our paths crossed long ago. This time he should be less inclined to tolerate the compromises demanded by a deceitful hard-Left or be bothered by the fake news which exudes from the enemy commentariat.

For the good of Australia he must return and form a government in at least an entente with Pauline and Bernardi. Together they will necessarily presage a return to and a reinforcement of fundamental constitutional principles, a subject to which I propose to return in the future.