So, despite the fact that the company in charge of building the thing announced last week that they think it likely it will go another seven years and another £25 billion over budget, you still think its a great use of public money ?
No, but the government must look at how the money is proposed to be spent and not just sitting back and accepting what they are being told. The line and those to link to it are required, but the way the scheme is being managed is obviously flawed, as these things often are when politicians / civil servants have the controlling say.
What it needs is a completely different approach with a real senior business person, used to being in control of international companies with an excellent track record, to demand from the contractors they pick, after the normal raising of quotations (not estimates), what is required and the absolute limit on cost that cannot be exceeded.
That is how it works in any successful commercial operation where profitability is crucial. Those that cannot achieve their goals must be dismissed, and then others who can given the position.
The review should also wipe out any intention to experiment with non-off the shelf rolling stock and fancy civil engineering. Full value for money is a must, and if that is not possible no contracts should be signed off and then, regrettfully, the whole project should be scrapped, but not until all due process has been explored by senior commercial managers who have been given very clear objectives by the CEO.
So a very hard nosed approach must be pursued, not the wishy washy one we are witnessing.