I don’t have the strength to post this tonight, but I’ve been dealing with MCS regarding the documentation surrounding our install (long story… I’ll cover it soon), and the reply I received this afternoon quite literally blew my mind.

We all make throwaway comments like “I don’t know why MCS even exists,” usually in moments of frustration. But after today’s email, I genuinely have no idea why they exist and what useful role they play. 

@editor 

My theory is they are a useful buffer/scapegoat for civil servants. The lack of regulation would still lead to difficult questions at the select committee. But without MCS, there would not be a "supplier" that could periodically make promises. 

But as you stated, shaking this cosy ecosystem with new financial players may prompt a real change - for the installations where they are involved. 

Posted by: @batpred

↑

 

My theory is they are a useful buffer/scapegoat for civil servants. The lack of regulation would still lead to difficult questions at the select committee. But without MCS, there would not be a "supplier" that could periodically make promises

Posted by: @batpred

↑

MCS co-designs and lightly oversees glorified boxticking exercises with good tolerance for poor execution. They are the essential facade in this light regulation scene. Politicians unwilling or unable to argue for the discipline and infrastructure that could underpin tried and tested consumer protection methods are implicitly supporting it. 

Whilst I agree with some of your observations about the consequences, I genuinely think you are being grossly unfair blaming the politicians or civil servants. 

They are only doing what we, the voters, asked for namely avoiding regulation wherever possible and reducing the size of government.  I repeat that for 53 out of 80 years since the second world war we have had a government, elected by us in a free democratic process, that is ideologically disposed against regulation and makes no secret of that. 

The people to blame are us, the voters, not the people who (by and large) respond to what we ask for to the best of their ability and within the real world constraints.

We really do have to stop blaming 'other' for our problems, whatever they are, otherwise we will never take responsibility for our own choices and sacrifice the opportunity to change things in the way we want.

Posted by: @jamespa

↑

Posted by: @batpred

↑

My theory is they are a useful buffer/scapegoat for civil servants. The lack of regulation would still lead to difficult questions at the select committee. But without MCS, there would not be a "supplier" that could periodically make promises

Posted by: @batpred

↑

MCS co-designs and lightly oversees glorified boxticking exercises with good tolerance for poor execution. They are the essential facade in this light regulation scene. Politicians unwilling or unable to argue for the discipline and infrastructure that could underpin tried and tested consumer protection methods are implicitly supporting it. 

Whilst I agree with some of your observations about the consequences, I genuinely think you are being grossly unfair blaming the politicians or civil servants. 

Ok, I did not mean to blame civil servants and they do not make the decisions. They have the right to defend themselves from being directly blamed for the faults of the system. Ultimately they are generally not given the resources to regulate the market and in the short periods when the electorate is supporting a different approach, priorities rarely support making changes. 

The politicians are selected by their empathy and focus on more immediate fixes. Then voters decide. But they do not seem to be able to make the case for building an effective regulatory framework and then deliver it (like for gas and electricity). It may be because voters have genuinely been against regulation. Or because politicians are generally not from science backgrounds, except for healthcare. 

Posted by: @jamespa

↑

They are only doing what we, the voters, asked for namely avoiding regulation wherever possible and reducing the size of government.  I repeat that for 53 out of 80 years since the second world war we have had a government, elected by us in a free democratic process, that is ideologically disposed against regulation and makes no secret of that. 

I agree, one point I would add is that this challenge around setting these simple technical and performance standards seems to not be such a problem in neighbouring countries like the Nordics. 

People like us should not be forced onto a path or of learning the technologies because of what I perceive to be a lack or effective controls and then still be expected to pay MCS experts for a pretend guarantee. I would not mind paying to have peace of mind that proper regulation can give. But the prospect of paying for glorified boxticking that is not independently checked is off-putting.

When gas prices increase and we consider a HeatPump, I would hope there are some controls. But if the current environment does not change, it would need to be a very time consuming process. 

I should add we had all sorts of experiences with tradespeople from great and relaxing to people walking out half way through jobs.. or in the case of the green insulation scheme, even before they started! At least nobody got to waste the painfully obtained voucher..

Posted by: @cathoderay

↑

Posted by: @batpred

↑

the essential facade

Exactly. To the casual observer, it looks like there is independent regulation, but there is nothing substantial behind the facade, just some goons re-arranging the paperclips. Just the sort of thing Sir Humphrey from Yes Minister would dream up.

Hacker: You mean MCS isn't there to protect the public?

Sir Humphrey: Good God no! It's there to make people feel protected when in fact they are not being protected. 

I have to admit we have been recently on the iPlayer enjoying Yes minister. 😂

In an early career, I consulted for some gov "companies" and it is obvious that employees cannot just think of what's best for the public. Only the ones staying in the org can make a contribution... So when it is obvious it is being rushed or it will go wrong, it is only fair they want to protect themselves. 

Posted by: @batpred

↑

The politicians are selected by their empathy and focus on more immediate fixes. Then voters decide. But they do not seem to be able to make the case for building an effective regulatory framework and then deliver it (like for gas and electricity). It may be because voters have genuinely been against regulation. Or because politicians are generally not from science backgrounds, except for healthcare. 

That's true without a doubt.  But let's turn it round.  When did technical qualifications of the mp figure highly in votors decision making?  My impression is that voters prefer a cheeky chappy with a bubbly personality over a slightly socially awkward but highly technically qualified individual every time.  That's clearly the case when it comes to prime ministers.

When voters ask and care about technical qualifications, parties will pick people who have them.  Whilst voters are seduced by outward personality that is what voters will largely be offered!

As to whether votors are against regulation, I think the answer it in the voting history.  The parties make no secret of their position on such matters!  Of course you might argue that they don't understand what they are voting for, but that's the downside of a universal right to vote.

Posted by: @jamespa

↑

As to whether votors are against regulation, I think the answer it in the voting history.  The parties make no secret of their position on such matters!  Of course you might argue that they don't understand what they are voting for, but that's the downside of a universal right to vote.

Even if the voters ask to have more representative experts, the local or county councillors aspiring to national will insist on acquired rights... It would be a very slow process. 

Having as universal right to vote as possible is always good, it is an extra incentive to try to make sure all feel part of it. 

I think the Netherlands may be quite unique in universal right to vote, from one year of residency... 

Pretty awful had new heat pump dead on arrival followed by leaks wouldn't heat A rayed bungalow then flow alarms followed by faulty air valves excess noise plus huge electricity bills jan £526 electric alone. Also rust in system after only 10 months. If i chose again i would only use company that guarantees not just work but performance and and do annual FULL service on entire system not just heat pump. I cojld write so much more. No i would not swap a boiler for heat pump by choice.  

Posted by: @editor

↑

I don’t have the strength to post this tonight, but I’ve been dealing with MCS regarding the documentation surrounding our install (long story… I’ll cover it soon), and the reply I received this afternoon quite literally blew my mind.

We all make throwaway comments like “I don’t know why MCS even exists,” usually in moments of frustration. But after today’s email, I genuinely have no idea why they exist and what useful role they play. 

Have you had a chance to recover enough to elaborate on MCS's reply? We have had a little diversion on why democracy doesn't work (the punters are too thick to know what's good for them, though the counter argument, that it is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time, is notable by its absence), but it would be good to get back to what MCS does and doesn't do in the real world. Your experience is likely to be particularly interesting, because presumably they know exactly who you are, and what is likely to happen to anything they say.

I have to say my own view after trying to make sense of MCS's own high hopes for a bigger and better MCS Mk 2 is that it is all a load of codswallop. At some point, I might get round to doing a proper demolition job on it, but another part of me says do I really want to spend my time blowing up a pile of dung? What on earth does this (Proposal 1 SUPPORTED , bullet point 2) "MCS Installation Standards will be stripped back to become ‘technical truths’ and will be supported by Pre-sale Information and System Performance Estimate Standards relevant to each technology." actually mean? WTF is a 'technical truth'? This is pure gibberish of the kind Orwell warned us against in Politics and the English Language. 

@cathoderay Some truths are more truthful than others?😉

@cathoderay 

I think you may have misunderstood what I was getting at which perhaps I didn't make clear.

Both @batpred and I touched, albeit very obliquely, on the argument that democracy is the worst form of government with the exception of all the others and I was careful neither to criticise nor to support light regulation.  At no point did I suggest voters are stupid, those are your words.

I was not making an argument against democracy nor an argument against voting rights being universal.  I was just making some comments which link light regulation to voting choices, 

Why do I make this link/comments?  Because we cant really expect the situation to change whilst voting choices remain in their historical patten.  I would go further  and say we have no right to expect it to change and anyway what gives you or me the right to say that stronger regulation is good for the public and that the problem is that they don't understand that?

The corollary of this is that, rather than complaining about it (which many here do), we might be better accepting that it's a choice that the public has made, and thinking of alternative ways to address the problems caused by poor installs.

Put another way we have to deal with the world as it is not the world as we would like it to be.  The world as it is includes, for better or worse, the voting choices of the public.

Posted by: @toodles

↑

Some truths are more truthful than others?

The key thing, unless you are a post-modernist egg-head, is that in the ordinary everyday world a truth can't be qualified. It's binary, and that's the truth. But worse, the phrase 'MCS Installation Standards will be stripped back to become ‘technical truths’' is still meaningless babble, probably written by an AI bot that has no human sense of the meaning of truth. At the end of the day, a standard is an arbitrary definition of what is required, which of itself has no connection whatsoever with the notion of truth, it is just a requirement. If they are trying to say MCS Standards will be evidence based, then cut the AI crap, and say just that. We can then look at the evidence, and decide first whether we think it stands up to scrutiny and second whether we think it has been applied sensibly or not. Either or both checks can be violated, as the current chaos over lithium battery 'standards' and 'requirements' (here the quotes are justified) demonstrates only too well.