A few questions/points, about private/public partnerships, or PFI, or whatever it's called at the moment (and this post is entirely serious):

Somewhere above, George H muttered about the inappropriateness of PPP given today's buoyant economy & low interest rates. Other things being equal, he may be right (I'm afraid I've never looked at the figures) but, as so often, other things aren't equal. It used to be the case that on average planning a new hospital, awarding the design contract, waiting for the design, going out to tender, evaluating the responses, and finally awarding the contracts took about 12 years; building subsequently took another 9 years typically. PFI reduces the first phase from 12 years to 3 and the second phase from 9 years to 5 (I have in mind the specific instance of the new "Derby Acute" hospital where the 3 years is fact, although the 5 years is, as yet, a promise). So you get a new hospital in 8 years, not 21.

Second, although people fulminate about the private sector profiting from illness, no-one complains about profits (moderate profits, anyway: but I'm talking about normal competition-limited business, not exploitation) made by the suppliers of anaesthetics, scalpels, PCs, bog-paper, canteen cutlery, etc to the hospital service - what's the difference?

Thirdly, in the private sector, monopolies are thought to be a bad thing. But, again, no-one seems to complain about government monopolies. I think that all monopolies are deplorable, but that government monopolies are particularly pernicious.

Lastly, RailTrack: they may not be a shining example of the benefits of privatisation, but are memories so short that the deficiencies of BR are completely forgotten? BR was not a golden age. If I may introduce, taran-tara taran-tara, a musical element, the "apocryphal" verse, "I saw a snail drive a nail faster than by British Rail", of Who's the Fool now? was written long before RailTrack was thought of.