On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 12:06:07 -0700 (PDT), Mizter T
wrote:

Which I suppose could be interpreted as 'we want the full scheme but
we want to pay less for it' - likewise, it could also be interpreted
as 'we want the full scheme but we definitely don't want any cost
overruns on it'.

As it the £15.9 bn headline figure is 3 times the actual estimate to
allow for "optimism bias" there really shouldn't be any overrun!