Q. Do you approve or disapprove of the job <NAME> is doing as State Premier?

[Only asked in NSW, VIC, QLD, SA and WA]

• Approval of Dominic Perrottet among those in NSW is at 47%, however as he has just been in the job for a short period of time, there is a large number who are as yet unsure of him (25%). Last October, approval of Gladys Berejiklian was at 67%.
• Approval of Daniel Andrews among Victorians is at 52%, around the same level as last October (54%) but a drop from the level last November (65%).
• Approval of Steven Marshall among South Australians remains at 61%, around the same level as last November (60%).
• Approval of Annastacia Palaszczuk among Queenslanders and Mark McGowan among Western Australians remain at similar levels as last October at 66% and 82% respectively.

• Nearly half (46%) of Western Australians strongly approve of the job Mark McGowan is doing as State Premier.
• About a quarter (26%) of Queenslanders strongly approve of the job Annastacia Palaszczuk is doing as State Premier.
• While 20% of Victorians strongly approve of the job Daniel Andrews is doing as State Premier, about a quarter (24%) strongly disapprove.
• A quarter (25%) of those in NSW are unsure about the job newly appointed State Premier Dominic Perrottet is doing.

Q. Do you approve or disapprove of the job <NAME> is doing as State Premier?

[Only asked in NSW, VIC, QLD, SA and WA]

• Mark McGowan in WA has the highest approval of State premiers, with 84% approving of his leadership, and just 7% disapproval.
• Victorian Dan Andrews has the lowest approval rating (54% approval, with 40% disapproval). He maintains approval among Labor voters (78% approval), but majority of Coalition voters in Victoria disapprove of his leadership (54%).
• Gladys Berejiklian has a high approval rating compared to other state premiers (67%). She has a majority approval among Coalition voters (83%), Labor voters (57%) and other parties (60%).
• 62% of Queenslanders approval of the job Annastacia Palaszczuk is doing ahead of the election later this month. 28% disapprove of the Queensland premier, driven by high disapproval ratings among Coalition voters (37%).

Today’s installment of reality versus fantasy is brought to us courtesy of Barry O’Farrell’s flogging of that tired-old, and entirely false, presumption that the magic of privatization and outsourcing and will cure all ills. It reminds us that the Coalition’s entire economic philosophy is anchored by false, phony and economically bankrupt ideas.

Here is the news, though, it’s not really news since it simply puts a rubber stamp on the Coalition’s ideologically, non-economically sound, plans. From the Fantasy Review (known to bankers as the Financial Review), another so-called journalist, Michaela Whitbourn, shows the basic flaws in what passes for journalism:

The NSW public service would be forced to compete with the private sector under the recommendations of a review chaired by businessman David Gonski which pushes for major changes to how the state provides health, transport and other important services.

The government supported most of the 132 recommendations and said it would use competition to ensure the public sector’s performance kept pace with the private sector.

“We have to change the way we manage and deliver, and we have to change fast,” NSW Premier Barry O’Farrell said.

“When suppliers compete to provide a service or a good, they’re forced to improve their efficiency, their quality, their pricing, and customers . . . take back control through the exercise of choice.”

Mr O’Farrell and Treasurer Mike Baird yesterday released the final report of the state’s Commission of Audit, chaired by Mr Gonski and conducted by former Sydney Water managing director Kerry Schott. [emphasis added]

So, to clear up one obvious point: is it surprising that the “audit” conducted by a former Sydney Water managing director — an organization that is panting to privatize — would advocate for privatization? This is classic “garbage in, garbage out”: you get results based on the bias you go into any project with.

One of the reasons that these theories aren’t laughed at is simply that the traditional press is lazy and does not understand basic economics. Reporters are not doing their research and so they simply show up, regurgitate press releases or reports, without doing any independent research — not to mention independent thinking. You don’t need to be a deep thinker though. You can rely on that very secret, obscure tool called “Google”. It takes any average person like yours truly about 30 seconds to find evidence from across the planet that privatization does not work. Repeat: it does not work.

To wit. In the US, just to take one example, the government paid billions of dollars more for privatized services in 33 of 35 occupations. Conclusion, from People for the American Way:

Some privatization efforts are windfalls that enrich major corporations or politically connected local businesses at the expense of taxpayers. Sometimes the cause is simply a mismatch between the resources and expertise of a public official and a major Wall Street firm.

“There’s a reason that there’s been so much enthusiasm in the finance community for privatization deals. You are dealing with a less savvy partner,” said David Johnson, a partner in a firm that advises struggling municipalities. “The bigger sucker is always the government.” Privatization can be good business, whether successful or not. When privatization plans fail and government steps back in, politically connected financiers brokers, and law firms can still walk away with millions of taxpayer dollars.

There is a long history of the push for privatization which has no sound basis in economics but a very solid history in anti-union, pro-business sentiment:

In recent years, dozens of privatization initiatives have been proposed, passed, or implemented. They are aimed at water treatment, transportation infrastructure, education, prisons and prison services, health care and other human services, government buildings, municipal maintenance, emergency services, and more. Those efforts are frequently promoted by the same Wall Street firms that helped create the recession and financial crisis; by right-wing foundations, think tanks and political donors who are eager to exploit the budget-balancing desperation of public officials; and, of course, corporations eager to tap public coffers and take over assets built with taxpayer funds.

What’s pretty clear is this: O’Farrell, The Coalition and their other privatization groupies can’t have an actual serious debate about the economics of privatization — because they can’t win on the numbers. So, they make it all up to hide a far more serious agenda: the undermining of wages for public workers, and for society as a whole, in favor of siphoning off more wealth to big business and the elite.

— Jonathan Tasini
@jonathantasini

Q. If a State Election was held today to which party will you probably give your first preference vote? If not sure, which party are you currently leaning toward?

Q. If don’t know -Well which party are you currently leaning to?

sample size = 1,953

 NB.  The data in the above tables comprise 6-week averages derived the first preference/leaning to voting questions.  Respondents who select ‘don’t know’ are not included in the results.  The two-party preferred estimate is calculated by distributing the votes of the other parties according to their preferences at the previous election. Comments »