As I said.. we are very close and in danger of descending into semantics. Maybe if I put it this way...
Yes, I know very well what Friedman's Monetarism means. I also understand the fundamentals of Keynsianism. I was at Uni as a very impoverished mature student just after Thatcher came to power and of course the Friedman v Keynes debate was very current. It featured very prominently in discussions surrounding the course 'The History of Economic Thought', which comprised 20% of my first year studies, though, as the name implies, the course was a pretty cursory one, covering economic thought from Plato, via Scholasticism, Feudalism, Bullionism, the rise of Capital(ism), the Marxist response, etc, etc.. to Keynes and Friedman.
So yes, I accept that sadly, the currently predominant ideology is Friedman/Thatcher/Monetarist based. But that's not really the point I'm making...
My point is, put simply, that even if I subscribed to the 'technical' premises and assumptions inherent in Friedman et. al., (which I don't) and even if I believed (which I don't) in say, Privatisation.. It would not follow that it is 'good thing', to achieve privatisation by flogging Children's Homes, Health Care, etc., etc., etc. to offshore interests, foreign govts, etc.,etc.,etc.
It is the fact that so much Privatisation has led to precisely those evils, and precisely that lack of oversight, regulation etc.. to keep even Privatised public services under control via strict UK ownership rules.. which makes it obvious to me that this is not really Friedman/Monetarism. That ideology is simply a convenient 'cloak of respectability' on which to hang wholesale theft.
And today's Fantasy Economics bollocks from Hunt, simply confirms that the ruling bastards have not finished yet, and still see sufficient Asset Stealing opportunity in the future, principally I suspect in and around the NHS, to keep them interested in 'Government', for the forseeable.