Really?
All the equipment required for the construction will be made in government owned factories, and operated by government employed engineers?
As per a previous post, a big chunk of this money will go to various suppliers in the wider economy.
It's obviously good that money is going into suppliers and the economy, but if that is the sole purpose why not build something that would actually be worthwhile, rather that an countryside destroying new train line?
Who said that was the sole purpose?
As the government have repeatedly said, this is not just about the journey times - it adds much needed capacity.
I'm not saying I support it, I don't know enough about the current line and the amount of passengers (and freight) projected to be required in the future.But nobody in government has said it is just for journey times.
Nobody in government has said anything, except how it decreases journey times.
The government has not told the true reason behind HS2. It has no business case, no environmental case, nobody wants it and it is a total waste of money.
Well these guys (the government) seem to think otherwise HS2: strategic case - Publications - GOV.UK
I've not seen any member of the government saying this is the sole (or even primary) reason for HS2. They have consistently said it is about capacity.
This topic fells like it is going in circles.
If that is the case then why call it high speed? It is called high speed because that is what it is - going from A to B faster.
If high speed is not the most important factor it would not be called high speed.
Bloody hell!! 
Thanks, read that and it tells me nothing new. It tells me not a thing about why the HS2 project is necessary and for the greater good of the British general public or business.
Having extra capacity is one thing, how much use it is rather depends on whether you can afford to run any trains on it 