Would you say that previous experience of PFI contracts for roads, hospitals and schools in Britain demonstrates that this way of working leads to a good quality product being delivered cheaply and efficiently ?
Seems to have worked for M6 (Toll) and some big new bridges (Severn, Mersey etc), Heathrow Express, the Thames Tideway Tunnel etc.
Crossrail is at least partly a public-private project, based on contributions from property owners and employers.
The hospitals and schools at least got built (unless it was a Carillion contract).
If HMG hasn't got the debt capacity to fund them 100%, you have a PFI or similar or do without.
Airlines (even cash-rich BA) typically lease half their fleets to keep the capital spend down.
There is allegedly a "wall of money" in savings and pensions funds that the government wants to tap, rather than lower its debt rating.
Denis Healey and Jim Callaghan, and even Gordon Brown, know all about Labour debt exposure, devaluation and austerity.
It works in some sectors, but I'll agree the track record on transport isn't good.
But you can blame incompetent "client" organisations like Railtrack and Network Rail for much of that.
Do you remember the public spending dilemma of the 1970s?
We could have two of: the Channel Tunnel, a 3rd London Airport, or Concorde, but not all three.
Then they found that they couldn't cancel Concorde, because we'd promised the French not to (to stop them doing the same).
We're still waiting for the 3rd London Airport, unless you count Stansted.
The Channel Tunnel eventually got built with private money, as the losing shareholders will attest.
When rail nationalisation actually gets on the agenda, there will be a similar debate about need and affordability.