Westernred, really not sure on what grounds anyone can justify introducing competition into a natural monopoly.
From a marketing point of view there is no way to differentiate between one electron and another electron
economics tells you that the building of transmission pylons, substations, and providing an electricity grid is a massive barrier to entry
physics tells us that a third of the electricity generated is lost in resistance every 200 km of travel

It's sad that the only effective opposition to the modern market madness is the ETU who have lost their historic platform for airing their grievance or point of view.

The Labor Party no longer enjoys the support of its traditional 1950s supporter, factory workers and tradespeople and its losing the intelligensia that Gough collected in the 1970s. Rudd is probably further to the right than Malcolm Fraser and might even make old Ming look moderate.

James

I don't think the Bligh Government's actions are anything new. From the very first days of labor representaton in parliament there were critics saying essentially that the party was not representing workers but helping capitalism.

The party admittedly has changed over the years and its social composition is more white collar workers (but still workers!) and petit bourgeois than in the past. There are still however a large number of ex union officials. Those paid ex-officials are not workers or members of the working class. (More on this later.)

The role of the ALP is to manage capitalism, not necessarily to implement reforms for workers. That is why the history of Labor Parties around the world is one of attacking their supporter base (workers) to help capitalism run according to its bizzare logic.

You argue that workers need their own poltical party. That is true. The question is whether it is a pro-capitalist party (like the ALP) or a pro-worker party. We need to be clear that a party formed by the trade union bureaucracy will govern in the end for the bosses, not workers. This is because paid union officials are not workers. They are the retailers of workers' labour power to the bosses and so have a material interest in the continuation of the exploitative wages system.

One final point. Rather than fretting about political representation, the ETU could launch an all out strike campaign for better wages and against privatisation (ie to defend jobs and living standards.) That's the way forward for the union movement (and it would actually increase membership too).

Once the ETU has used its industrial power to win real wage increases and defend jobs, then we can sit down and talk about what is the best way to express this militancy politically.

Daggett

“If it was true to its original purpose it would be acting as a political arm of the union movement rather than unions acting as the wing (presumably industrial) of the Labor Party.”

I agree, but the fact is the Labor Party has moved so far to the Right and away from those early origins. While they are better than the other lot, the ALP has very much evolved away from a heavy pro-worker/pro-union platform. Rudd’s famous mantra of “economic conservative” is still ringing in our ears.

Transparency is the ideal as you mention, but even without it, the actions of the Howard government for example, would betray any notions of acting in the interests of workers.

My point is (perhaps idealistic ) that if elected parties are expected to represent their constituencies to the detriment of other sectors, then this is not democracy. It might be the best we have got but the system can be improved. If particular lobby groups or unions are not powerful enough to represent their constituency then there is little representation for that group ie. workers or small business (whatever the case might be). WorkChoices legislation effectively reduced the power of the unions of which the effect was to deny any balance in industrial relations.

This is why I worry about parties being too aligned to one particular group or interest, as opposed to working in the interests of the Australian people as a whole and getting the balance right between the interests of business and the interest of workers and ordinary people.

Real democracy would include more input from the electorate either through referendums held at the federal election (perhaps) that would not only elect the new government but would set the direction on some policy or conscience vote issues. (And selling off publicly owned assets like NSW power and the Snowy Hydro). Naturally this would be unworkable and unwieldy for every aspect of policy and to that extent we rely on the elected government for representation.

First , if you have different sources of generation you can buy electricity from them, they can compete. It does not require separate distribution of the electricity.

I don't believe Labor is anymore Right than it ever was - it was Labor which was the main promoter of the White Australia policy at the beginning of Federation. Labor's economic policies reflected the prevailing managed capitalist views of the time which saw labor and capital in Australia reach a long term compromise (now ended).

Union officials and ALP hacks keep getting elected because they control the numbers. If you give a Union a bloc vote and then give the "proxy" to the Secretary it will inevitably end up with that person or their favourites being elected to Parliament, subjet only to arguing with other Secretaries about how to divvy it up.

Give the vote to ordinary Union members and I think you remove that problem.

Westernred, it seems to me that you are leading us around in circles.

As I have already written, it is conceivable that different power generation companies (in addition to those with excess power from, for example, roof-top solar panels) could supply energy into a grid, but once that energy gets into the grid, there is no practical way that consumers can distinguish between power supplied by one company as distinct from power supplied by another, as Billie and I have already pointed out.

In such circumstances, why would consumers, instead of getting on with their lives, want to be bothered deciding how much electricity should be fed into the grid by each supplier on any given day?

If that decision is to be made, it would be far better left to the entity controlling the grid. Only blinkered ideologues believe that it is not possible for this to be done well by a power supply utility that is publicly owned and accountable to its owners through parliamentary democracy.

---

Passy, I don't entirely disagree with what you write. The free market capitalist system is an obvious failure and needs to be replaced by something else. I would still term the replacement 'socialism', although a form of socialism which takes into account the physical limitations of our badly degraded natural environment (See "Trotsky's Biggest Blindspot" by Sandy Irvine at http://candobetter.org/node/392)

However, the path towards that can only be found if workers and other ordinary people assert their right to have input into the political decisions which affect their lives. At the moment, they are being told that they should not have that right.

I am aware of how Labor parliamentarians have let down their constituency since very early in their history, but I think we have to bear in mind, that they are not altogether alone in this. As examples, I would also include a number of far left organisations amongst those which have let down the Australian working class.

(tobecontinued)

(continuedfromabove)

However, back to the central issue:

It is obvious that workers and many other ordinary sectors of society are not being represented in Parliament. All the parties, including the Labor Party, are pursuing the agendas of the corporate sector to the detriment of everyone else.

This highly undemocratic situation should be challenged whenever and wherever it is possible to do so, and that includes inside the Labor Party.

What the ETU is threatening to do has already been done on almost innumerable occasions in past decades. Unions disaffected by Labor Government policies have spat the dummy and have disaffiliated, but have never seriously attempted to set up alternative political parties to represent their interests of the members. Had they done this and had resolved to hold account to their constituencies any of their Parliamentary representatives, then they could have easily been in a position to challenge the Labor Party by now, or have even eclipsed them.

Consequently, there has never been anyone to turn to except even more reactionary political organisations such as the Liberal Party. Inevitably when these parties form government, they attack workers even more viciously than the Labor Party. This has caused all those unions who had previously indignantly repudiated the Labor Party to meekly come back under its skirts, and after decades, the political landscape has not moved forward an inch.

Inevitably, if disaffected unions follow the trajectory that the ETU seems intent on heading, we will, at best, only be back to where we are today after yet another two decades.

As to union militancy being a panacea, I have my doubts. Certainly more union militancy, rather than less is needed today, but a simple outbreak of industrial action, without regard by the trade unions for the broader economic, ecological and political factors could lead us backwards as the 1979 "Winter of Discontent" against the Callaghan Labor government only helped bring about the anti-worker neo-liberal counter-revolution of Margaret Thatcher.

(tobecontinued)