Short Thought - Theory - most people don't understand this term, and that is a problem.

A lot of public discourse contains statements such as "That's just theoretical" or "It's only a theory".  These kinds of statement are meant to convey that the referenced position is in doubt often in contrast to the writer's own position that is presumably not in doubt.

I think it is worth pointing out that all statements about the real world in which we live are contingent rather than necessary in philosophical terms.  That means they reflect limited knowledge and are in fact "theories".

In philosophy something is described as necessary if it follows logically from some premise or premises regarded by definition as true.

No statement about the real world can be regarded as absolutely true as our knowledge about the real world is mediated by a combination of naturally occurring and human-made sensors and processing structures.  These sensing and processing structures are subject to error.  Therefore anything "known" based on data associated with them cannot be completely relied upon.

The approach humans have developed to deal with this situation and mitigate the risk of error in gathering and interpreting data about the real world is often called "science".  Doing "science" involves gathering data sometimes but by no means always under controlled, experimental conditions and then constructing descriptions usually but not always supported by the use of formal mathematics intended to explain the observations.  These formal descriptions are called "theories".  In addition to being able to explain existing observations, a theory must also predict new observations of the part of reality under investigation.  Further, the theory must be "falsifiable" by observation - this means it must be capable of making predictions that can be tested and potentially falsified by the results of the tests.

Theories (descriptions of reality) are only useful as far as they are able to explain observations and predict what new observations might be and up until some observation is made that contradicts the theory.  This means theories are always contingent on observation and can never be said to contain absolutely true statements about reality.

Falsification in the light of new evidence is how theories are developed or discarded and replaced by better ones.  This is science.  It is the basis on which ALL debates about reality should be conducted.  Its not the only basis, but it is a basis which should always exist.

Our understanding of reality, including the bits involving people and their behaviour is therefore only validly composed of contingent, falsifiable theories plus to a greater of lesser extent subjective things like aesthetics, preference, ethical content etc.  So statements like "It's only a theory" are not helpful, some might say they are not even meaningful.

Even if we are not doing formal science, using the basis of theory formation even informally without the use of mathematics should be the basis of how we think about and discuss the real world, especially when it comes to things affecting people.

Short Thought - HS2 - What's the point and is it worth it?

HS2 is a project to build a system of so called high speed railway lines connecting London with Birmingham and then onto Sheffield and Leeds.  It is vastly expensive and will take a very long time to complete.

I question whether the value to be derived from HS2 is sufficient to justify the cost particulary given its very limited scope and excessive time scale.

It is without doubt that this country needs a more effective and higher value-add transport system.  However, the scope of HS2 is so limited that it is hard to see how it benefits more than a very small number of people even if it is ever completed.

Part of the problem can be seen in what I said at the top of this post:  HS2 is designed to link London to Birmingham, Sheffield and Leeds.  What the country needs is the opposite of anything that further strengthens the imbalance of economic value flows in favour of London.  This country needs policies and investment to even out that imbalance.  The money and time being spent on HS2 would better be spent improving transport and information infrastructure within the regions around Birmingham, Leeds and Sheffield together with regions encompassing the rest of England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland.  This is what I mean by the scope of HS2 being very limited.

Another point that supports the argument against HS2 is indicated by my reference to "information infrastructure".  The UK missed the boat forty or fifty years ago with regard high-speed railways.  It was then that other developed countries largely got on that band wagon before the age of information and communications technologies.  HS2 belongs in the past, the future should emphasise digital information and telecommunications infrastructure and associated ways of working.  These offer far more equitable economic advantages and opportunities across England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland than extending a 19th century technological paradigm into the 21st Century.

To sum up, HS2 is based on obsolete thinking, will only entrench the economic and social imbalance in the UK in favour of London and thereby further impoverish the majority of the populations of the UK and Republic of Ireland.

UK Government dismisses house plant tax suggestion - disingenuously

It has been suggested this week that house plants sold in the UK should attract a lower rate of VAT.  IT is suggested that they improve quality of life and mental health and ownership should therefore be encouraged.  It is noted that other countries take that approach.

Seems like a good idea.  However, the UK government responded by saying that EU rules prevent them from applying a zero rate of VAT.  I am sure this is factually correct, however, it has nothing to do with the issue in question.  There is nothing to stop the Government applying a lower rate as suggested, say 6% rather than the standard 20%.  Responding with an irrelevancy has become typical these days.  Instead of dismissing what is a perfectly reasonable suggestion with an insulting exercise in fobbing off, they should say instead that they will consider the question and respond in due course, or if they really don't want to think about it, say that honestly.

This now commonplace experience contributes to the public's distaste, disrespect and frustration with government.

This is one reason why the executive needs more effective scrutiny from parliament.

UK Needs to Rebalance Powers of Government to Improve its Democracy

Powers of government are traditionally listed as:

• Legislative power - makes laws, holds executive to account
• Executive power - forms and implements policy in the shape of regulation and standards, enforces the law, operates the defence of the country, maintains and operates other public services, administers the country's finances etc.
• Judicial power - interprets the law, makes law by interpretation, applies the law through judging civil and criminal cases brought before judges in courts or similar venues

The functions above are simplified - for more detail use a search engine or a library.

In various places and at various times in history, governmental authorities have exercised these powers with a greater or less degree of separation. Depending on the degree of separation and exact nature of the implementation of institutions enshrining these powers, the interests of the powerful elites versus the interests of the remainder of the people have been balanced differently.

Depending on the the degree of separation, and balance of powers, the more or less tyrannical the government.  The more tyrannical the government, history shows the worse are outcomes for society as a whole in terms of geopolitical, social and economic risk and the worse outcomes are for individuals not in or protected by the elite.   

In absolute monarchies or other forms of absolute dictatorship, these powers are held by the monarch or dictator.  There is no representation of the people and no effective counter to the power of the monarch or dictator.  The application of the law is done at the effective whim of the monarch or dictator.  Given the attractiveness of power to people exhibiting high degrees of selfishness, propensity to cruelty and brutality, the outcomes for people outside of the elite supporting and influencing the monarch or dictator are poor and the overall wealth generating capacity of society is very limited as any surplus produced is generally expropriated and consumed by the elite rather than being reinvested in the economy in the form of physical, intellectual and human capital.

In more mature and democratic societies, the powers are separated and enshrined in more or less independent institutions. The degree of power separation and independence of the institutions in which powers are enshrined correlates with the degree of democracy attributable to the society in question. 

In representative democracies, the legislature is elected by the people on a regular basis.  The members so elected are mandated to represent the interests of the people who elected them. The degree to which this representation of the interests of the people is effective depends on the power of the legislature versus the power of the executive.  Recent experience in the UK has shown very clearly that the balance of power is very much in favour of the executive which is free to act in its own interest rather than the interests of the people as represented by the legislature.  This is most obviously manifest in the power of the executive to determine the business put before parliament and to decide if votes are binding on the executive.

In the UK parliament performs the functions of the legislative branch and holds the executive (the government) to account.

I suggest parliament gets to set its own agenda and and it gets to determine whether votes (all votes) are binding on the executive.  Further, it should get to approve senior executive appointments and be able to prosecute those appointees if they transgress the limits of their power.  Those limits need to be more clearly defined.

I think a big part of the problem is that a kind of fusion of powers has arisen over the last 300 or so years.  Instead of a clear and formal separation, powers were transmitted from the executive to the legislative branch as a way of limiting the power of the monarch.  This lead to the evolution of the role and office of prime minister.  This is now a de facto presidential role combining most of the powers of the monarch (old-time chief executive) with a very high degree of control of parliament (the legislative branch of government).  This contrasts sharply with how the United States of America resolved the same problem.  As far as I know, there, the executive branch is if anything the weakest of the 3 branches - and deliberately so it seems.