[Latty]

If it is anything like the UK, it's a simple cycle of:

- Under-fund the public service because it "costs too much" (ignore the value it generates for the public).

- Service performs poorly when underfunded, so you can manufacture consent to sell it, argue that private ownership will be more efficient.

- Sell it, creating short-term income you can use to spend on stuff people (and your mates) like (often tax cuts), making your government seem effective. You can also sell it to your mates who then get easy profit milking a natural monopoly for profit, probably kicking some back to you in the form of a cushy "advisor" gig when you retire.

- Inevitably end up making the unprofitable parts of it public again when the private providers simply stop doing it, or go under trying to. You then have these expensive bits of public service with no income-generating bits to offset them you can point to and say public services are inefficient. Private profits, public losses.

- Hey look, public services cost too much! We should under-fund some other ones...