Or maybe the numbers are skewed. Note post 3662, Paragraph 12 - the alternative numbers from the expert advisers to the Davies Commission and the estimates of Sir Peter Hendy.
Do you truly believe that potential investors do not have their own methods of working out the ROI?
But the issue is the money coming from the taxpayer. Which is overwhelmingly concentrated on infrastructure in London and the SE, and has been for the past 30 years. What about that money?
A large chunk of which will come straight back in taxes on the wages and VAT on the suppliers and materials. Also, it has been explained many times that the areas the taxpayer would be funding are in need of upgrading now and will need to be done at some point anyway. To do so at the same time as LHR expansion will provide a major saving to the taxpayer.
May I congratulate you on your fine vocabulary of disparaging words and phrases deployed against that 70%+ of the UK population seeking a fair return on their contribution to the success of the nation
Who is this 70% for which you speak? Pretty much everyone I know back home couldn't care less about LHR. Those that have an opinion are all for it due to the easier access to flights worldwide and also the potential for work on the project.
The bottom line is that the government cannot afford to fully finance any large scale construction projects these days. It has to have the outside investment as well in order to go ahead. The government have shown that they are interested in the northern powerhouse by trying to get the Chinese on board but without the will to invest their hands are tied.
LHR is nothing to do with the lack of construction up north and I really don't know why it has become part of this debate. The problems at LHR are political not financial.