However if you take away private ownership where does the taxation come from to pay for other services, where is the "pot" to buy these assets.
Governnment spending is not limited by tax revenue. This is a complete myth which the country has been sold since the Thatcher era. People buy into it because it chimes with their own experience of running their finances but the idea that national finances run on the same lines as household budgets is entirely false.
The nation does not have an 'income' limited by the amount of money they can recoup in tax, nor is it limited by anything else. It used to be limited by the amount of gold it held but 'the gold standard' was abolished in the early 1970s and since then the government has been free to issue as much money as it pleases. Taxation has an important role to play but its prime function is to prevent inflation caused by too much money circulating in the economy. A secondary function could be to prevent inequalities caused by wealthy people acquiring yet more wealth, monpolising the money in the economy and not returning money to the economy through spending (and ultimately, taxation). But while ever resources are in plentiful supply and available for purchase there can be very little inflation.
(And please don't say Venezuela or Zimbabwe because their economic problems, while caused by an oversupply of money, have a very different basis. They are not mature democracies with a very long established central banking system. They are also rife with corruption, far in excess of any that might exist in the UK. Japan is a much better example of a stable country running a big deficit at no detriment to their economy)
It is the government, through the Bank of England, or through banks licensed to issue money, which issues money. That is why the government can spend vast amounts on quantitative easing and on projects like preparing for Brexit (and bribing the DUP). Vast amounts which are not funded by tax revenue.
As far as public spending is concerned, tories don't like it because it ostensibly deprives private enterprise of profits. However, when you look at it logically there is no reason why it should do so because all public services' resources are supplied by private enterprise. Medicines, equipment, food, uniforms, railway engines, etc. etc. We have no state enterprises supplying resources. The only thing that private enterprise is denied is the opportunity to make a profit by supplying the actual service.
There is a strange feeling in existence that money spent by the government on public services disappears into a big black hole and is never seen again. This is absurd. The wages of public servants are spent in the economy on things supplied by private enterprise and, as I've already pointed out, the actual services themselves purchase everything they need from private enterprises. Most of the money the government issues eventually comes back to it by way of taxation. The only money that doesn't is that which is saved in this country or that which is sent off to tax havens to avoid being liable for UK taxation. The so called 'deficit' is really people's savings or money squirrelled off abroad.
The current government is not 'struggling to invest in the NHS' (or any other public service). They could 'invest' as much as is needed; they are limited not by shortage of money but by ideology. They want to shrink the state in order to let private enterprise take over.
(And 'EU State aid rules are a complete red herring.)
If anyone is interested I suggest they read this explanation by Richard Murphy: www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2019/05/10/pretty-much-all-that-most-people-need-to-know-about-modern-monetary-theory/
I'm old enough to remember pre-privatisation, too. I don't see any particular improvement in services since privatisation.
This is a huge topic which impinges on the 'real' economy as opposed to the money markets and I'm afraid I have no time for the next couple of days to defend my comments but I I hope that they provoke some thought.