Would you cancel HS2 to invest in the NHS?

[Clansman]

With the Health Service the way it is across the whole UK, it's evident for all to see that the NHS under the current government is at breaking point. Given the ever rising estimated costs of HS2, would you cancel HS2 if it meant we could give the health service the lump sum it needs to get back on its feet?

In my opinion, I think HS2 is a must, but given the state of the NHS I can see why a lot of people think our priorities should be reconsidered.

What does everyone else think on this issue?

Note to mods: Decided to put the thread in this category because it is a subject which incorporates just as much railway discussion than external matters, as well as how the 2 impact each other. Feel free to move anyway.

 

[Bletchleyite]

With the Health Service the way it is across the whole UK, it's evident for all to see that the NHS under the current government is at breaking point. Given the ever rising estimated costs of HS2, would you cancel HS2 if it meant we could give the health service the lump sum it needs to get back on its feet?

No, I'd increase taxes (specifically income tax) so we can fund both properly.

 

[hwl]

With the Health Service the way it is across the whole UK, it's evident for all to see that the NHS under the current government is at breaking point. Given the ever rising estimated costs of HS2, would you cancel HS2 if it meant we could give the health service the lump sum it needs to get back on its feet?

No because many of the NHS issues aren't lump sum type issues.

 

[absolutelymilk]

No - HS2 will bring economic benefits that will increase the funding available for the NHS, over and above the money that is being spent on it.

 

[Moonshot]

No, I'd increase taxes (specifically income tax) so we can fund both properly.

How many voters would vote for that ?

 

[Mag_seven]

HS2 is a vanity project that we can do without. The money wasted on it would be much better split between the NHS and improving the existing rail network. Examples of where I would spend the money would be on re openings such as Colne to Skipton and widespread lengthening to 12 cars on many routes.

 

[najaB]

No. While HS2's BCR isn't the greatest in the world, it's still positive. Which means the nation is better off (richer) for building it than not.

 

[najaB]

HS2 is a vanity project that we can do without. The money wasted on it would be much better...

Those who do not learn from the posts of the past are doomed to repeat them in thread after thread.

 

[Pinza-C55]

I had to vote "other" because I would cancel HS2 regardless of whether any more money went to the NHS. As for the NHS I believe the answer to its problems is to strip out the various attempts at pseudo privatisation and fat cat bosses who have no medical experience. Return it to what it was supposed to be - a service available to British citizens, free at the point of use.
The rail network should also be renationalised immediately.

 

[Howardh]

Yes. We need money for the NHS (even more so as the leaving of the EU appears to give sod all) and we need it now. In twenty, thirty, forty years, how can we guarantee that HS2 won't be a very expensive white elephant, on the grounds that with mega-speed broadband available everywhere making commuting for meetings etc unnecessary, cars running on batteries which go much further than now (and topped up on the move maybe by overhead wires), aircraft with more passengers using less fuel - could be a complete waste of money and even 3D printing meaning goods don't have to travel (not that I've a clue as to what it means...)??

Sure we need HS2 NOW to increase capacity...however it won't be ready until I'm 6' under.

Split the cash, half to the NHS, half to upgrade the lines we already have.

 

[Pinza-C55]

HS2 is a vanity project that we can do without. The money wasted on it would be much better split between the NHS and improving the existing rail network. Examples of where I would spend the money would be on re openings such as Colne to Skipton and widespread lengthening to 12 cars on many routes.

This, all day long.

 

[Mag_seven]

Those who do not learn from the posts of the past are doomed to repeat them in thread after thread.

I'm not quite sure what your point is but my view on HS2 is as stated. I do not intend to debate it any further because nothing will change my view.

 

[najaB]

...half to upgrade the lines we already have.

Which is enough to get things halfway to nowhere: the West Coast Modernisation program cost £9B (if memory serves) and pretty much all that extra capacity is gone already.

 

[Bletchleyite]

How many voters would vote for that ?

If they don't, they're going to lose their public services, slowly but surely. We need to set up a quality set of services and charge a fair, realistic rate of tax for them.

 

[najaB]

I do not intend to debate it any further because nothing will change my view.

Welcome to my ignored user list.

 

[Bletchleyite]

This, all day long.

The main bulk of HS2 is to improve the existing rail network - specifically, to provide two extra tracks on the overcrowded south WCML. You might as well build them high speed, it costs little more than 125mph.

 

[Moonshot]

Isnt the deal from Brexit designed to give the NHS an extra £350 million per week anyway ??

 

[najaB]

Isnt the deal from Brexit designed to give the NHS an extra £350 million per week anyway ??

I'm sure I heard that somewhere.

 

[PeterC]

Isnt the deal from Brexit designed to give the NHS an extra £350 million per week anyway ??

As Orwell would probably have rendered it in Newspeak "Doubleplusungood, refs unpolicy"

 

[J-2739]

No. We have to try to continue into HS2. We can't lose hope whenever the weather.

HS2 will bring many benefits to the NHS. Will there be a same result vice verse?

 

[EM2]

No, I'd increase taxes (specifically income tax) so we can fund both properly.

How many voters would vote for that ?

Me, for one.
I'd also pay more income tax to improve public transport, and to improve education. A three pence rise (a penny ring-fenced for each) would help improve them considerably.

 

[Moonshot]

If they don't, they're going to lose their public services, slowly but surely. We need to set up a quality set of services and charge a fair, realistic rate of tax for them.

What is really needed is an honest debate on what we want the State to provide ......

Some would argue that privatising the whole rail industry would free up state funds for NHS.

 

[najaB]

Some would argue that privatising the whole rail industry would free up state funds for NHS.

And there are those who would argue that privatising health care would free up money for [insert program of your choice].

 

[AndrewE]

How many voters would vote for that ?

I would. If you want to live in the developed world with a proper infrastructure and a health service that protects you from catching TB from some poor person in the street I suggest that you take a broader view.

What we are enjoying now (while it lasts & before it collapses irretrievably) is the result of investment in everything (from education to sewerage - and BR's developments) that has been funded by income and other taxes over the last 50 or 60 years. I paid 30 or 35% on a CO1 (entry-grade clerk)'s salary in 1974.

20% is ludicrous if you want any kind of organised government, rather than the self-serving charlies you see promoting their own interests over the pond.

Low tax / small government is a fool's paradise.

 

[Moonshot]

Me, for one.
I'd also pay more income tax to improve public transport, and to improve education. A three pence rise (a penny ring-fenced for each) would help improve them considerably.

What impact would that have on peoples spending power....ie less take home pay ?? What would suffer ?

 

[Moonshot]

Me, for one.
I'd also pay more income tax to improve public transport, and to improve education. A three pence rise (a penny ring-fenced for each) would help improve them considerably.

If you consider rail fares to be nothing more than stealth taxes, maybe a steep rise in regulated rail fares would pay to improve public transport?

 

[najaB]

What impact would that have on peoples spending power....ie less take home pay ?? What would suffer ?

Well, if you currently earn £27.6K PA (the median salary), your take home pay would go from £1827/month to £1781/month (rough calculation based on the tax-free limit staying the same). So if you were getting £46 less in your pocket what would you not buy?

 

[Starmill]

I think it's clear we need new ways of bringing in tax revenue. Not increasing resources for the NHS (+social car, schools, local authorities etc. etc.) seems not to be an option, but that hardly means we should not imvest in roads, railways, energy and communications. Tax on land is a better avenue to pursue than the already highly taxed and highly political labour.

Mansion Tax sounds like a good idea to me. What about a tax on land with planning permission that is not developed? Or a tax on car parking spaces?

 

[EM2]

What impact would that have on peoples spending power....ie less take home pay ?? What would suffer ?

I'd probably buy fewer coffees and CDs.

If you consider rail fares to be nothing more than stealth taxes...

But I don't.

 

[Moonshot]

Well, if you currently earn £27.6K PA (the median salary), your take home pay would go from £1827/month to £1781/month (rough calculation based on the tax-free limit staying the same). So if you were getting £46 less in your pocket what would you not buy?

I d stop paying my Union Subs