Yes, our city had 3 large "homes" for convalescence, long term care, etc., which were either council or NHS owned. Trouble was that they were so old, they were falling down (literally) and were riddled with asbestos, so repairs/improvements were incredibly expensive. Repeat that all over the country and you soon see why successive govts have "contracted out" longer term care to the private sector. The three homes in question took years for the developers to clear out the asbestos and either knock them down and/or convert them into housing.
Same happened with the railways. They "had to" be privatised because the trains themselves (as owned by the nationalised BR) were so old, they all needed replacement over a relatively short time period because they weren't compliant with current H&S (disability friendly, sliding doors, tanks under the toilets, containing asbestos, etc) - successive Govt couldn't afford to buy replacement stock (at a cost of billions), so it was privatised to get access to private funding.
Likewise PFI for building new hospitals, etc as lots of older hospitals were unfit for purpose due to age, asbestos, layout, etc.
The international money markets are controlling the UK because of the national debt. For the Govt to build new buildings, buy new trains, etc., it just adds to the deficit and increases national debt, and money markets charge higher interest if we borrow too much. Hence why Govts subcontract out big spending projects so that the debt doesn't land on the Govt balance sheet, so the money markets aren't spooked and don't increase interest!
It's a lot more complex than just a govt saying "nah, we won't bother funding it" - and it's not just the Tories either. Blair/Brown tried all kinds of fudges to try to assure the money markets we weren't borrowing beyond our means, hence the vast amount of new schools/hospitals bought on PFI that the taxpayer will be paying for decades ahead.