to wonder where the government are getting the money for the high speed train from?

[Sevenfold]

thats it really, I don't get it.
we are supposed to be poor, yet they can find billions to carve up the Chilterns to save about 30 mins traveling time.

[Birdsgottafly]

This country is far from being poor, we just have a government who doesn't believe in paying out welfare benefits.

[IUseTooMuchKitchenRoll]

From tax I would have thought.

[noddyholder]

Totally agree how can we pay for this and the bloody olympics yet we still have children in this country under fed and benefits being for those in need.

[ShellyBoobs]

There's a pay back expected. Something like a 200% return on the investment, from what I've read, which will be a combination of increased productivity (and hence tax take) and the jobs created by the scheme.

[Bogeyface]

Its not just being paid for by the government and the portion that is, is being seen as Shelley says, as "spend money to make money".

[TroublesomeEx]

Benefit cuts.

Pension cuts.

3 year public sector pay freezes.

[cookcleanerchaufferetc]

A complete waste of money, time and resources ..... And it will end up being over budget, fucked up in many ways, and too bloody expensive.

[TopazMortmain]

Under cushions of big government sofa and in government old coat pockets.

My theory anyway.

[EdithWeston]

It's a recycled Labour policy. Around since at least 2008, Adonis and Brown announced it in March 2010. I suppose "No" campaigners got their hopes up with the change of administration, in the expectation that the new lot would not feel wedded to the proposal and be more amenable to scrapping it.

I suppose the expected benefits aren't just the line itself, but the employment it will support during its construction. It's an example of spending to support growth, and some people support than as a means towards growth and the only prospect of end to austerity. Osborne announced last autumn proposal to spend on national infrastructure. I think it's the nearest the coalition will ever get to job creation.

And as its earliest opening date is 2017, it'll be whoever forms the next administration who reaps any benefits.

Which begs the interesting question: did Labour put up another disastrous project and still no-one's seen the Emperor has no clothes? Or might there actually be merit in this as a revenue generator?

[yellowraincoat]

Every week at the moment there's one of these threads. Some of you really need to learn about how economics works - it's not as simple as "this country doesn't have enough money to spend on x, so why are we spending money on y?"

Besides which, I really can't believe anyone thinks we live in a poor country. Wake up. We are one of the richest countries in the world. Even the poor in this country can't begin to compare with the poverty in other parts of the world.

[Whatmeworry]

Paid for by taxpayers, run by private company no doubt. Prepare to be ripped off royally.

[FredFredGeorge]

So whilst it doesn't appear to be a sane investment to me, and the returns are dubious. But it's paid out of the tax you get from the extra business done due to the railway. You cannot compare it to other things which are ongoing costs and have little investment.

The government can still borrow money cheaply, and the extra tax raised from the economic benefits are expected to be larger than the cost of paying back that debt.

The difference can be pretty much thought of as the difference between getting a mortgage you can afford which will save you hundreds of pounds in rent every month, and borrowing hundreds of pounds every week to pay for food etc. One is pretty sensible (with some risk) the other is completely bonkers and you'll quickly be bankrupt.

I'm not too confident that the risk/reward ratio is good for the rail line though and more sensible investments could be found. Roads would have a better return almost certainly but would be even more unpopular I'm sure.

[BIWI]

Whilst I have no desire to support this government [understatement], one thing we all have to remember is that we, as a nation, do have to invest in our future - and a sound infrastructure is a very important part of a strong economy.

This was initially a Labour plan (I believe, though I'm prepared to be wrong), and is also part of getting traffic off the roads. In fact, it's quite surprising that a conservative government would be backing such a plan over and above building more roads.

All of which suggests that there must be serious economic benefits to going ahead with the investment. (And by the way, investing in roads is hugely expensive too).

[CogitoErgoSometimes]

YABU.... if a government is going to keep borrowing large amounts of money, investing capital on infrastructure that improves the economic prospects of the country long-term is a good choice. The UK's travel network is poor. The roads are choked, trains are overcrowded and that contributes to an uneven spread of commerce and population. The net result is a too-high concentration of population and excessive house prices in the SE. which we all complain about, and great jobless wastelands and falling house prices in other regions which we also complain about.

I'd like them not to stop at the High Speed Rail Link but fix other transport anomalies... like not keep expanding Heathrow to the size of a small state but instead enlarge international airports in Manchester and the Midlands to encourage business to set up shop there.

[TroublesomeEx]

yellowraincoat how does it work then?

[Sevenfold]

but the government keep saying we are broke.
they are taking money from disabled people under that pretence,
yet they can afford this.

[niceguy2]

YABU

Our current rail system was put in place by the Victorians. Is it really going to be useful to us for the 21st century high tech economy we need? I say no it's not.

We all know the rail system is crap and needs improving. It's not been widely reported but the 'cost' of HS2 is only 10% more than upgrading existing tracks. So if you look at it from that respect, it's a good deal.

The first phase of the project is claimed to create 40,000 jobs. That's a lot of jobs and a huge knock on effect to the wider economy.

The investment will be spread over the next 15 years so it's not like we've just rocked up and said "Plop, here's £32 billion"

The Tories support it, Labour support it, hell even the TUC support it which is a minor miracle.

There is an argument that it may draw more business to the South rather than spread business northwards. I guess it's a risk but in a free society we cannot control where people live/work. But our current train system is crap. When I used to live in Manchester, I flew to London because it was quicker & cheaper. How can that be right?

The only thing I want to see is that most of the contracts will be awarded to UK companies to create proper jobs for UK people.

On balance I think this is a good thing for our country.

[Sevenfold]

good point about uk companies.
it will only be of benefit for a small amount of people though, and will save 3o odd min of a journey, but you still have to ravel to london first. and am I right it doesn't stop on route? so the people who live on route will get no benefits at all. same with the jobs, that won't benefit someone in devon(example) will it

[yellowraincoat]

Folkgirl, it's quite hard to explain the entire concept of an economy. Not sure I can do it. It's just quite annoying to see people constantly complaining about stuff they obviously have no clue about.

Having said that, I do think my earlier post was a bit grumpier than necessary.

[hackmum]

£32bn is a huge, huge amount of money. I'm slightly sceptical that we'll reap the financial benefits the government is promising.

It's not that I don't believe in investing in infrastructure. I do. I'm all in favour of creating jobs and I'm all in favour of replacing an ancient, creaking railway system. I just don't understand why London to Birmingham. If you asked all the people who travelled on the railway what improvements they'd like to see, I bet hardly anyone would say "Halve the time it takes to travel between London and Birmingham."

[yellowraincoat]

Birmingham is a pretty massive hub though. Links to Wales and the entire south west which contains pretty big cities like Bristol.

[Snorbs]

If it actually comes in at £32bn I shall eat my own knees. I'll put a fiver on it being at least £45bn when finally complete, albeit a lot of that will be in largely hidden PPI deals.

[TroublesomeEx]

yellowraincoat Well my DH is pretty good at economics and gets a bit eye-rolly at having to explain things to me a hundred times over.

It's one of those things where I almost understand for a nanosecond and then it's gone again!

So even if you had explained, chances are I still wouldn't have got it!!

[BIWI]

It will also allow Birmingham airport to expand - it will be quicker to get to Birmingham International than Stanstead - which will also therefore take some of the pressure off Heathrow, which will be important given that the extra runway has been cancelled.