There's a difference between having HS2 not being the best route into Manchester and HS2 not being built at all.
There is, we can agree on that. That is why I don't want to stop HS2 being built. I have a huge problem with the routing of HS2 north of Crewe and a smaller problem with the Branches into Leeds and Birmingham. Build away to Crewe, get started on the eastern Branch towards Sheffield and Leeds. But hold off on the Crewe-Manchester Alignment until a clear picture of NPR is developed so that the infrastructure can be built to maximise the benefits of the whole rather than the initial limited scope given to HS2.
However there's a problem, a lot of those who oppose HS2 don't want it built at all. As such if a group who don't like a specific alignment then align with groups who oppose the who project then there's a risk that nothing happens. As such no benefits are obtained rather than some benefits.
That maybe true. The problem with the outright defense of HS2 even it's fundamental flaws as demonstrated on this thread: you push the people like me, who have an opinion of 'If you are going to build it, build it properly.' towards the position of 'If you are not going to build it properly, don't bother building it at all'.
I have never said that HS2 is perfect, likewise it's not uncommon for government to spend money which results in them having to spend more to get the best results of future projects.
There's an argument that if HS2 is built on a bad alignment so that NPR had to take a different route then the result is three HS lines in Manchester, providing extra capacity over if only two routes were built. Yes there would be extra costs, however chances are these would be offset by the extra benefits.
These two arguements seem incedible week. Governement always waste money doing the wrong thing, so we should allow them to spend more money in the wrong way rather than pressurising them to spend it in the right way. Combined with, if you back the obviously flawed alignment then there is a chance you will get both that and the correct alignment. they seem a ridicuolous arguement when you consider it is your tax money that is paying for it. If I pay a builder to come into my house, I make damn sure he knocks down the right wall. I don't let him crack on knocking down the wrong one knowing that I am going to have to pay him to knock down the correct one later.
It seems to me that rather than getting both alignments into Manchester you would end up not getting the East-West alignment as the flaws in the original alignment would shift the Cost-Benefit ratio in the wrong direction. Increased costs for the longer and more complex tunneling involvedn : Decreased Benefits from the longer journey times resulting.