We've come to a pretty pass when journalists are again engaging in petty cut-and-paste politics, and puerile analysis, this time about disunity in the Federal Liberal Party.  

The leaked email, leapt on first by the leaper of leapers Glen Milne [1], was initially referred to as a liberal party squabble [2], nyer, OK, maybe he has a point, but then it became a division in the party [3] and not just in one paper [4]. Almost as soon as the story has been whipped up out of nowhere, poorly analysed and reported, we get a flurry of contradictory stories suggesting poor Mr Nelson is calling for party unity [5], burying the hatchet [6] (in whom we might ask), and generally trying to ease his way out [7]of a major conflagration.

A major conflagration entirely lit and fed by poor analysis on the part of headline grabbing journalists, editors, sub-editors and the rest.

With thousands of words and dozens of column inches now dedicated to this drivel, I can only bury my fingers in my keyboard to bemoan this kind of cheap trick journalism, and hope that it soon gives way to some real investigative reporting which will contribute, rather than detract from, our democratic process.  

Not one of these glorified typists picked up on the notion that our very democratic system is underpinned not by goosestepping, party unity rubbish, but by our capacity to welcome and participate in lively debates around policy issues.

For our democracy to be healthy and progressive, we WANT our political institutions, parties, departments, agencies, cabinets, quandas, gatherings, taskforces, etc, to encourage and withstand heated debates around policy, arrive at a conclusions, then work together.  

This notion of debate followed by consensus, needs to operate at every level of politics or the whole system collapses in a pathetic, and quite possibly violent heap [8].

Our party-based parliamentary system needs the opportunity to host heated, heart-felt contradictory commentaries in order to arrive at a party position. Sure, you might not agree with the decision, but having had the opportunity to put forward your ideas, and debate them with your peers, being a member of the party then requires you to support the general consensus, whether or not it falls within your initial expectations.

So no - there is no contradiction in Malcolm Turnbull's sending a dissenting email one day, then toeing the party line another - it's not hypocracy, it's not disunity, and it's not division - it's DEMOCRACY.

I even find myself missing ole Howie and the broad church line he'd whip out at times like these.

The leaking of the email perhaps suggests a bit of stupidity on the part of some politician, or staffer, because they, no doubt, knew where it would lead. However, the email itself and Turnbull's apparent about face reflect the fact that despite their current political woes, the Federal Liberal Party members are still capable of participating in a policy debate, then work together towards a common goal.

That's the way the system works - if you don't like it, I challenge you to find a better approach, and I'd be delighted if you'd write in and tell me about it.  

That is after all what democracy, especially eDemocracy, is all about.