HS2 - The true reason why it's necessary

[Merging Cultures]

However it's described , the money is coming from the taxpayer , right?And it's a huge amount that's being spent on a risky venture.

  And i'm pretty sure if labour were in power it would be described simply as  a lefty tax and spend project

 

And that's the problem isn't it. It's politicians trying to spin stuff to suit the mood of the day. Hence the changes in rationale for the project. They are just trying to figure out the best way to sell the idea. And given that we have diversity of opinions in the UK they will never make everyone happy, but they will continue to try to spin it.

 

Each side of the argument will find statistics to prove their point. As I said, in general I am for it because investment in infrastructure is a good thing (white elephants aside!).

 

Government bonds are seen as risk free because in theory the Government could increase taxes or print money to pay them off on maturity. So yes, taxpayers could get hit to repay the debt, or they could just issue more bonds to pay that old debt off. That's why the debt doesn't go down. They just issue more debt to pay off the old one... bit of a ponzi scheme but backed by pretty solid revenue streams and therefore considered less risky.

[Merging Cultures]

I'm not necessarily opposed to this project - well-targeted investment in infrastructure is important for the future and boosts spending/growth/jobs. However, alarm bells ring when the advertised reasons for a project suddenly change. Those arguing for HS2 were definitely making the "quicker journeys for passengers, stimulating business" argument before, but have now switched to "capacity" and "freight". Is this just a tactical PR switch because politicians and big corporations, who work hand in glove whichever party is in govt, see benefits in it for themselves, not necessarily for passengers, growth etc.?

 

If you want to see large-scale public investment, Moose (surprised at that, what with austerity, "the need to cut the deficit" etc), how about a massive investment in house building instead? That would quickly boost growth, employment and spending, given all the SMEs and workers involved. It would also reduce house prices for first-time buyers struggling to buy and might avoid the sort of housing price bubble/crash that lay behind the banking crisis...a risk again with the current "help to buy" policy, which is jacking up house prices, as supply is woefully short of demand...it could even provide suitable accommodation for people clobbered by the bedroom tax who have no 1-bed flats to move to....

 

Re. the need for more passenger capacity on trains, particularly for businesspeople: whenever I travel by train, the 1st class carriages are mostly empty, despite the prices being only slightly higher than 2nd class. Admittedly, I don't travel before 9am, but I do sometimes travel to London weekday daytime and evening rush hour....where are all the businesspeople whom you'd expect to be there, tapping away at laptops? Will a minor time saving attract them on board?! 

 

Agreed, investment in housing is desperately needed.

[MooseBreath]

I prefer a smaller government, lower tax and more free market control in general, but I appreciate that the biggest projects just wouldn't happen privately as the risks are too high. I think spending on public infrastructure projects is largely a no-lose situation as the money spent feeds straight into the economy, boosting employment directly and by an increase in demand for associated services. If the government has access to these kind of funds then spending it is a must, the only question is what should it be spent on, and unfortunately that often boils down to what they can realistically get past all the opposition.

Spending £40bn on housing would create some crazy imbalance. House prices would plummet. The government would have to guarantee developers certain profit otherwise they'd stop building. You'd have large areas of empty houses. Lots of people would find their net worth heavily diminished. There would be lots of anger. I support doing something to help the house building industry but I don't think a direct multi-billion pound investment would result in many positives. It would be carnage.

[Bobby Hundreds]

Why don't they just arrange business meetings 20 minutes later?

[Monk]

In the UK we are incapable of completing large construction projects at good value to the tax payer.

 

I don't think anyone is disputing any of the benefits of HS2 (apart from some of the made up numbers on 'economic benefit to the midlands' which is quite frankly, bollocks).

 

The problem is value for money and public trust in the government's ability to deliver on budget.

 

I'd much rather see a regeneration of the east coast mainline, along with increased capacity along other major trunk routes. 

 

HS2 doesn't even reach scotland or the north, and the largest volume of domestic flights in the UK is between London and Glasgow & Edinburgh.

 

HS2 does't link up with other major transport hubs, namely Heathrow either.

 

The money could be better spent on other railway projects TBH.

[MooseBreath]

Tough to quantify value for money on these projects really. Budgets often get blown but that's the nature of the industry. Doesn't indicate incompetence.

[purpleronnie]

Build the fecking thing already.

[ADK]

We need to start becoming a country that invests in infrastructure again or we risk being left behind by other economies.

[Guest MattP]

I honestly have no idea.

 

Seems irrelevant to Leicester to be honest, our train service is fantastic to London, quick, clean and cheap (providing you book in advance, I got caught for a single for £130 about a year ago).

 

Getting to the North quicker would be better though, taking 2 and a half hours to get to Manchester is a joke.

[Zingari]

Tough to quantify value for money on these projects really. Budgets often get blown but that's the nature of the industry. Doesn't indicate incompetence.

 

I prefer a smaller government, lower tax and more free market control in general, but I appreciate that the biggest projects just wouldn't happen privately as the risks are too high. I think spending on public infrastructure projects is largely a no-lose situation as the money spent feeds straight into the economy, boosting employment directly and by an increase in demand for associated services. If the government has access to these kind of funds then spending it is a must, the only question is what should it be spent on, and unfortunately that often boils down to what they can realistically get past all the opposition.

Spending £40bn on housing would create some crazy imbalance. House prices would plummet. The government would have to guarantee developers certain profit otherwise they'd stop building. You'd have large areas of empty houses. Lots of people would find their net worth heavily diminished. There would be lots of anger. I support doing something to help the house building industry but I don't think a direct multi-billion pound investment would result in many positives. It would be carnage.

I doubt it ,  if they did it in a carefully planned way  over a sustained long term period . It would probably slow the growth of value of property , but not a "plummet"

 

I still think many supporters of this who seem to focussed on very debatable benefits would   describe this project as a typical reckless squandering of taxpayers cash if Labour were in office. 

[Saxondale]

 

 

- Are you employed by one of the train companies, BornBlue, or do you stand to benefit personally from this project in some way? (sorry if I'm being unduly cynical, but you so passionately follow the arguments of those behind the scheme)

 

 

 

No! Though, clearly, I should be.

 

 

Surely if the argument is shifting to freight, speed is no longer an issue. It can be understandable how passengers want shorter travel time but I hardly think it makes much difference to 100's of tons of coal, steel . timber etc.

 

 

If you're going to spend a lot of money on a new line, you're going to spend it on the most up-to-date technology rather than replicating our Victorian system.

[MooseBreath]

I still think many supporters of this who seem to focussed on very debatable benefits would describe this project as a typical reckless squandering of taxpayers cash if Labour were in office.

Maybe, but then the usual split we get on here doesn't seem to be coming through all that strongly. I think everyone is a bit uncertain. As I said I support it more as a way of boosting the economy in the construction rather than a way of providing substantial benefit long term. I think there are probably better ways to spend the money, but they are perhaps unrealistic due to opposition.

[Zingari]

Maybe, but then the usual split we get on here doesn't seem to be coming through all that strongly. I think everyone is a bit uncertain. As I said I support it more as a way of boosting the economy in the construction rather than a way of providing substantial benefit long term. I think there are probably better ways to spend the money, but they are perhaps unrealistic due to opposition.

That's basically my problem . For that amount of taxpayers money I'd like to see some cast iron guarantees .

[The God Emperor]

I doubt it ,  if they did it in a carefully planned way  over a sustained long term period . It would probably slow the growth of value of property , but not a "plummet"

 

I still think many supporters of this who seem to focussed on very debatable benefits would   describe this project as a typical reckless squandering of taxpayers cash if Labour were in office. 

yeah, but what party is really going to risk losing votes and lucrative backhanders focusing on the long term when they can just make another debt fueled bubble? 

[Webbo]

Surely the Govt will borrow the money and it will be paid back over time by the users?

[Zingari]

Surely the Govt will borrow the money and it will be paid back over time by the users?

It's an awful lot of London to Brum train fares is 50 billion plus interest.

[Rincewind]

If they charge above the going rate an arm and a leg they can be sold on for medical research making a hefty profit and keeping some surgeons in their 200k jobs and a lifestyle to which they are accustomed to.

[Webbo]

It's an awful lot of London to Brum train fares is 50 billion plus interest.

It also goes to Manchester and Leeds.

[purpleronnie]

It's an awful lot of London to Brum train fares is 50 billion plus interest.

Its ok, my tailor lives in london.

[ADK]

You might as well not build anything then.

 

We need a new mainline railway and we need a new London airport / extension of Heathrow.

 

The better our transport infrastructure the more attractive our country is for businesses which means more jobs and more tax revenue.

[MooseBreath]

That's basically my problem . For that amount of taxpayers money I'd like to see some cast iron guarantees .

Ain't nobody what can see into da future tho

[Zingari]

Ain't nobody what can see into da future tho

For that sort of money a general consensus that it's a good idea and will almost certainly benefit the whole nation , would seem to be a minimum requirement.

At best the stated benefits seem a bit nebulous .

[MooseBreath]

For that sort of money a general consensus that it's a good idea and will almost certainly benefit the whole nation , would seem to be a minimum requirement.

At best the stated benefits seem a bit nebulous .

Any ideas?

[Zingari]

Any ideas?

Sustainable long term investment in housing projects and  roads would seem to be much less of a risk and and guaranteed greater benefit for more of us .

[Rincewind]

Sustainable long term investment in housing projects and  roads would seem to be much less of a risk and and guaranteed greater benefit for more of us .

Well they won't do that then if its going to benefit more of us.