Yer gorra fink deeper than just blaming share holders. How does a company raise money to invest? Borrow from banks or the stock market. Both want a return on borrowing. When maggy sold fings oft it was because the country was broke. Its why she won her first election. Years of union fighting, secondary picketing bringing industry and food supplies to a hault. Food rotting in docks because oil/diesel stopped moving so no transport. Shop shelves emptry. Thoysands being kayed oft each day. Propper winter of discontent. Not the fake version the opposition are pushing now.
Previously if state owned organisations needed money, the gov funded it. If they made a loss then the gov chipped in. Maggy changed it so companies owned the task involved like running trains. The company borrow on the stock market, not the gov on behalf of the tax payer. Companies run far more efficient than gov owned stuff. That gain if efficency far outweighs profits made which are misrepresented as a loss to the public and tax payer. If the gov does the borrowing instead then they flog bonds. They have to oay a return on thems anorl. Hence neither side has cost free borrowing but publuc ownership has risk free borrowing. Bond returns are lower.
Trains are essentially nationalised already. Companies bid to run the service. Gov picks a winner. They get paid to run the service. Payment based on how its run. All the ticket income goes to the gov. Hence service is run on a fixed price v what they does. Essentually national control and gov taking the proceeds. Mess up and yer lose out when gov take back the opperation.
Water is simular. Companies borrow to invest long term. Borrow today to put in a new sewage wuks that lasts for 30 years before needing major rewuks again. Borrowing paid oft during the 30 years or earlier by thems who use the system. Money borrowed from stock market. SM takes the risk if yer shares drop. Other option is to borrow from banks but that can cost more. Also we is talking hundreds of millions which is far higher than a bank will want to lend a water company to fund investing in infrastructure. The alternative is to go back to gov ownership but thems who talk about how this would wuk, who are honest, admit gov inefficiencies will creep in, above the cost of profits. So that dun't make gov owned stuff cheaper as the inefficiencies of large scale gov control are higher.
In reality local gp practice, opticians and dentists have been majority pritivatised years ago. Parts of the service that wuk betterer under private offering. Hospitals started using private services under blair if they could do the wuk cheaper to help the waiting lists reduce. But that's far from privatising the whole nhs. Its a small proportion of the service.