I wonder. Had any privatisation in NL any net benefits for the population? Not talking shareholder revenues.

Of course not. The whole concept just doesn't make sense.

In most areas it made things worse. One could argue that the only exception are ISPs/cellular operators. But for public transport, healthcare, energy, etc. I can't say it was an improvement.

But yeah, we have one party that is most often in government that just loves privatisation, taxing workers more and the rich less, etc. and engages in a lot of short-term thinking. Apropos short-term thinking, one of them was a prime minister for 14 years and cut defense spending and did not even consider increasing spending when Russia invaded Crimea. And now he is the secretary general of NATO. Talking about failing upwards. Though he is probably primarily chosen for being able to communicate with Trump.

Rutte can't even speak English properly. My 7-year-old speaks better English than he does (kind of by accident, but that's another story).

There's a possibility that the postal and telecoms systems did but I can't give you a counter. For everything else it has not been particularly effective; but a lot depends on what is privatised and how it's actually ran.

Water. Energy. Public transport (which is partially privatised). Healthcare has been a disaster.

Same thing for the UK but the results there were much much worse, especially the water (Brexit made it 10x worse). It was driven by the actions of the Unions in the 1970s (where they were taking the mickey) but of course went way way way too far. What was needed was to tweak the system such that the unions couldn't blackmail the Labour governments. Not to break it all up and sell it off for pennies on the dollar.

Even worse: the right-wing politicians blocked all preemptive grid investments, as it would lead to "needlessly high" grid transport fees.