1. the amount you was entitled to buy was affordable, imagine 2.000 shares at less than one pound original outlay [the fully paid price was in the region of three pounds];
Spare money to buy shares (at *any* price) might be affordable for *you* - this does not mean it's affordable for most of the population, especially if you're talking about a meaningful investment. In any case, what does it actually mean to 'buy' shares in something you already owned?
2. if you mean "knock down prices" that the shares went down after the initial public offering, take care to correct the error. since many people in the general public and customer offer who were entitled to priority distribution bought the shares, the financial investors (me) got much less than they asked for. and the yield on the partly paid was in the region of 9%;
No, I mean the utilities being sold-off were massively undervalued. What would it cost to build a nationwide telephone network? A lot less than was charged for BT. This was true of all of the privatisations. The taxpayers have paid a lot more to build-up those industries than the state received when they were privatised.
"non profit" does not mean free, if I pad the water company with eight layers of management made out of political cronies, the end price of water will skyrocket.
This is the mantra of the free-marketers, that the private sector is somehow more efficient. And yet in reality we've seen costs go up in almost every privatised utility or service (water, trains, energy, health), and we find ourselves in bizarre situations like where taxpayers put more into the trains now, under a privatised system, than they did under nationalised BR, even though we've got the highest-ever ticket prices.
The free market is not some magic bullet. It works where there is actual competition and fails in other areas. Look at what's happening to the NHS - we're going from what is recognised as the most efficient healthcare system in the world to one 'opened-up to competition', a process that requires three more layers of beureacratic organisations and thousands more managers throughout the NHS dealing with contracts, bids, tenders and rubbish like that. None of it serves to help people actually using the NHS, but it does help Tory funders in private healthcare companies.
For a great example of what the 'privatise everything' train of thought leads to, look at energy. We sold-off everything, including all of the institutional technical knowledge. Now we want to build nuclear we basically have to pay whatever price a French government-run company demands, which would certainly be more than if we just admitted our free-market ideology was flawed and got the state to build it for the benefit of the people, rather than some corporation. How is this sensible?