Financial stimulus?

In all of the argument about the HS2 project, there is one argument - and only one - that I think has some virtue to it. I should point out that I still think the whole idea is a ridiculous waste of money. Interestingly, as I am writing this, some of these ideas are being ridiculed on HIGNFY - so I want to explore them in a little more depth.

The cost at this point is estimated at around £42Bn. Undoubtedly this figure will increase as time goes on - if it goes ahead, we should expect the figure to at least double. The argument that I do have some sympathy with is that this would be a massive injection of money into the economy.

Now this is true, it would be a major financial stimulus. However a significant single project like this will funnel a large portion of the money to rich financiers, businessmen and other friends of the Tories. In terms of wider financial incentive, I do not think that most of this money would boost the wider economy. I realise that this is partly my cynicism of the current government.

So what should we do instead? Well, on HIGNFY, Ian Hislop suggested "reversing all of Beechings rail cuts." I am not suggesting quite such a radical proposal, but if this £40Bn was invested in the railway infrastructure generally, and not just in one line, then I think it would prove a far better financial incentive.

So rather than one new line, provide overhauls to some of the existing lines. Possibly, where appropriate, bring lines back where they have been removed or allowed to fall into disuse. Maybe connect then up a little better, and provide good services on them.

It could be that in some areas, the existing lines just need some replacement work or repair, to reduce delays and holdups. That would improve the service, and - hopefully - encourage more people to use them. There are places where the money could be productively used to replace the existing train operator, and ensure a better and more cost-effective service.

Of course, these ideas are not big, flashy, high-profile glamour projects. They will not, if done properly, provide financial stimulus to the already-rich. They would provide real financial stimulus across the country, provide a lot of work to people, and give us a lasting legacy of an improved rail system.

Which, I suspect, is why this government will not do it.

Because I try to bring some theological insight into these musings, I think there is a church-related analogy. I know of churches that will focus on big glamour projects - buildings or youth workers or such like - and the congregation will be excited about these projects. But, in some cases at least, putting the same effort into the boring practicalities would produce better long-term results. Of course, when you focus on yourselves, to see what needs fixing, it can be very enlightening, and very disturbing.

Which, I suspect, is why so many churches do not do it.