|
In Sweden,they buy Swedish cars,in Germany,German cars,in France,French cars and in the UK,Japanese cars(wherever they're built).
|
The underlying problem is that we do not see the value in manufacturing - or certainly a previous government didn't (good old maggie) and as such we do not have a manufacturing strategy. Our schools seem more intent on producing sports scientists and historians because they can get better marks in the league tables with the softer subjects. It is well known that the sciences are in free fall within the higher education system at the moment.
Alot of other countries see engineering and sciences as a means to solving today's problems with global warming etc. We see the answer in taxation.
It's not just auto manufacturing either - I said on a previous post that Rolls-Royce have recently announced 3 brand new factories - they are building them in Germany, USA & Singapore - because they get better grants and educational support from those countries - they see it as an invetsment with a return in jobs and skills etc. Sir John Rose has been trying to persuade this government over the last 10 years to change things but they do not really listen.
Other countries have realised that having manufacturing also provides a basis for services - again we want to just let money pass through our financial system/markets to create wealth and get a few Russian billionaires to come over and live.
Certainly when trained properly we can do it like with Toyota and Honda etc -
Unfortunately when left to our own we are not that good - just look at Terminal 5 for a worldwide advert of how good we are in Britain.
|
Terminal 5 for a worldwide advert of how good we are in Britain.
Thye've had to rename it already - it is now just TERMINAL
|
|
|
|
The British owned manufacturers of yesteryear:- Austin, Morris, Rover and all the variants of the name, Rootes produced cars of "below satisafctory standard" at a price above the standard. Markets just ignored the products due to price and poor quality.
Along came the Japanese offering reliable (if dull cars) - so the main volume manufacturers of cars in the UK are Toyota, Nissan & Honda all producing cars of a quality not seen in the indigenous manufacturers. Almost forgot Vauxhall - (had a few in my time and they were OK!)
I started with my first car in 1966 - Brand new Ford Cortina - it was a 50/50 car - I had it some weeks the garage the next. MGBGT Dreadful reliability - brokedown @ 7 miles and again and again), then an Austin (actually OK) then for the next 25 years Fords/Vauxhalls and Peugeot.
In 1995 I discovered a Honda, in 1997 a Mercedes (18mths and stranded 2 x and it was sold) and since then Honda, Mazda, Nissan....... - all told 30+ cars most were brand new cars.
None of the Europeans (bar the Merc) got past 60K without engine/transmission issues.
|
I think at one stage even the Japs were well below standard as well.
They figured out that you have to look after your customers though.
A good example of this is in Australia where Land Rover (sorry that should be Tata) completely dominated the market. Then Toyota started selling the Land Cruiser which suprisingly was even more unreliable than LRs.
Whilst LR just enjoyed the sale of spares from all these broken cars, Toyota sent their engineers to work with the people using these vehicles as tools of their trade in the outback etc and worked out what was happening and improved their product reliability through changes to the design and manufacturing process.
Now I think 95% plus of 4x4's in Australia are Land Cruisers.
If you look at any Japanese Corporation's literature it talks of customers and quality.
Most european companies talk about shareholder returns.
|
If you look at any Japanese Corporation's literature it talks of customers and quality. Most european companies talk about shareholder returns.
But European car manufacturing is healthy - it's Britain that has no locally owned volume manufacture any more. Remember also that marketing is marketing. It doesn't matter what a company puts in their brochures, shareholder return or shareholder value is king and if it looks like their are better returns to be had elsewhere shareholders will abandon a company.
No manufacturer can survive by only selling into their home market. The French buy French cars, but so do we and the Irish and the Spanish and the Belgians.
|
>>No manufacturer can survive by only selling into their home market<<
That is the irony of your point Dyane - the european car market is healthy in europe.
In the rest of the world it cannot compete with the Japs - if you look at the developing worlds they have some share but it is dominated by the Japs, as it is in the US, middle east and Asia.
I'm also afraid you have missed the point with your statement on marketing - my point is with the Jap companies it is not marketing, it is the basis for their business. Yes they exist to make money but they understand that their profit is generated through customer value and satisfaction. Just look up the 14 mgt principles of Toyota.
If you take the current VW marketing that talks about confidence in the Polo and the Passat being crafted better than anyone else then you realise it is marketing and has no substance - as demonstrated in the difference between them and say Honda or Lexus in reliability, customer satisfaction and manufacturing costs.
As I say I think you misunderstood how Japanese companies operate.
|
Terminal 5 for a worldwide advert of how good we are in Britain.
In contrast, Beijing and Shanghai opened bigger new terminals than T5 without a hitch.
1st March 2008 www.4hoteliers.com/4hots_nshw.php?mwi=4146
26 March 2008 news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7314916.stm
Part of T5's problem was due to the fact that most of BA's ground staff did not arrive on time. In contrast the Retail outlets staff all arrived earlier than contracted to, because they have a different "work ethic".
re. anti Thatcher rants.
Renault was de-nationalised because "the company's state-owned status was detrimental to its growth, and Renault was privatised in 1996. This new freedom allowed the company to venture once again into Eastern Europe and South America, .."
British investment funds and pension funds (along with many other International investors) have lots of shareholdings in publicly quoted Companies such as BMW, Daimler-Benz, BMW, Ford, GM, Peugeot, Renault, Toyota, Nissan, Honda etc.
Investors cannot buy in to TATA's success though, because "Tata Motors is part of India's largest privately-owned conglomerate, the Tata Group"
topics.nytimes.com/top/news/business/companies/tat...l
|
|
|
|
Not sure it's that important or relevant really. We certainly make plenty of excellent cars in the UK, by proxy, and have lots of high-end vehicular development enterprises (you've only to think of the design & innovation of the primarily UK- based F1 industry for example..).
When you think about it, how French is a French car now? Or a German one? Or Japanese for that matter - design, construction & ownership is globalised & the fact that several British marques have bitten the dust or are notionally owned by 'foreigners' is of interest only to old car fanatics & little Englanders.
|
Ok woodbines.
Rover went bust. All the jobs went. China has got all the equipment and rights now. Do you think they will go bust with it?
Or will they follow the japanese idea and put the customer 1st (not the shareholder) and actually make a success of it?
I know where my money is.
Totally agree with posts regarding money money (short term) money is all we as a country are interested in. But where is our future?
|
I know where my money is.
So do I. Majority of my pension savings are invested in China and India. Looking at it from the China's and India's viewpoint, I am a foreigner who owns part of their industries. (My last tranche invested just over one week ago is already up 15% ! )
Totally agree with posts regarding money money (short term) money is all we as a country are interested in.
Money makes the world go round. Unfortunately, the Western economy is run on debt whereas the Eastern economy is run on savings.
Incidentally, do also remember that there is a hidden benfit to the UK from not having these industries based in the UK. UK has reduced its carbon footprint massively by exporting all the dirty industrial processes to the Chinese mainland. We also export our coal and oil power station emissions to Scandinavia through the use of massive tall chimneys.
But where is our future?
See my first paragraph.
|
|
|
Rover went bust. All the jobs went. China has got all the equipment and rights now. Do you think they will go bust with it?
No, I think they'll make a success of it - good luck to them. There again, they pay very low wages & labour conditions are appalling - there's growing social unrest in China as a result.
Rover had so much historical 'baggage' in the UK, I think no remedy would have worked, perhaps now the West Midlands (and other locales) will be able to use it's undoubted engineering expertise in re-applying itself to something worthwhile.
Or will they follow the japanese idea and put the customer 1st (not the shareholder) and actually make a success of it?
Probably about a billion Chinese peasants aching to get their hands on a City Rover or 'Modern Gentleman' & won't complain if fit & finish isn't quite Audi standard - so I don't know if it's comparing like-for-like really.
|
|
|
The financial argument about short termism is imo plain wrong. After all Ford and GM still produce..in the UK.. but many operations are now in Europe.
If any of you worked in the UK car industry in the 1960s or early 1970s as I did, 99% of management time was spent persuading the workforce to come back and work.. from strikes. Read "Working For Ford".
It was a political movement aided by some very incompetent management mainly at BL - who had no other resources to rely on but their own.
At one time BL - or the companies that came together to form BL - had a 60% market share. When they bought companies BL should have ruthlessly closed factories and rationalised production and models. As they could not afford it financially - the strike costs would have been huge - they did nowt.
And of course the model designs were carp Maxi anyone? And the costs were too high. Mini profits anyone? And engineering was underfunded. Princess 2200 manual driveshafts anyone? And quality? Lipservice only...
And then they had a communist agitator as shop steward (Robinson) who was determined (like Arthur Scargill in the mines) that if BL did not do as he wanted, they would not produce.
Period.
BL could have solved their problems by clsoing most of their factories, building on new sites and ruthlessly discarding all troublemakers. They had neither the will or ability to do it. More importantly they had no cash.
Remember how Fleet Street was sorted? By a ruthless use of new technology and a 100% removal of the Print Unions (the NGA and others) who basically opposed any modernisation. Full stop.
Says it all.
|
>>The financial argument about short termism is imo plain wrong<<
I don't understand your point madf - are you saying that it makes no difference financially if you think short term or long term or are you saying that you should take a long term view ?
|
>Pendlebury
I refer to the comments "The more fundamental and structural problem is that British investors want to see returns over a very short period. Shorter than allows for effective R&D. The city actually tends to reward organisations that slash R&D as it has a short-term benefit in terms of Profit and Loss. A sensible return period for heavy industry is more like ten years, whereas UK investors will tend to look at a two to three year cycle. "
On the basis of the above argument Rolls Royce aeroengines should not exist.
|
The French drive French made cars.
The Germans drive German cars.
The Japanese drive their own makes.
The Italians drive their marques.
They all support their own car industries, whether the cars are unreliable or unfashionable.
The trouble with this country is that we drive every other make but British, largely. When Rover was in trouble, people were moaning about the loss. There was an airfield runway full of Rover cars and no takers. If you wanted a car industry in this country you should all of supported it like those above.
If all the utility services,emergency services, council services had just had the conviction to fill their fleets with British stock, our car industry would not have gone down the pan. But no, the British did not support the British car industry, so we have none. We only have ourselves to blame.
If we had of supported Rover and the rest, maybe they might of had the sizeable cash reserves to reinvest. To design desirable and reliable vehicles along the lines of the Japanese or the Germans.
So don't weep for a lost cause, we are all to blame for having a zero car industry of our own. So we just assemble other countries cars and sell them here instead.
|
In repsonse to madf about RR - But it took the city about 15 years to realise that RR was a sound long term business.
Only now that they see it is getting good returns for it's servicing has it decided to invest so they can get money quick.
The fact you call it RR aero-engines is also how some people see them whereas their businesses are power generation for air, marine and land (oil and gas pumping).
When it bought Vickers the city did not want to know because they were not clever enough to realise that it supplemented their marine business perfectly - the so called clever analysts were all wondering what RR was doing buying a Tank company !!
And more recently it's share price has been slashed by about 25% because the city wanted an immediate cash pay out after the increase in proits for 2007/08.
RR on the other hand decided to reward investors with an 35% increased dividend and keep cash for future R&D so it did not have to borrow during a credit crunch - a very clever move that is thinking long term IMO.
UK investors wanted a quick buck and sold shares in the millions because they did not want to wait.
That is also the argument the blue chip engineering companies use as a basis for increasing the foreign shareholding.
Edited by Pendlebury on 28/03/2008 at 21:24
|
"On the basis of the above argument Rolls Royce aeroengines should not exist"
In the 1970's they very nearly didnt, they were one of the "lame ducks" rescued by the government. Certainly UK and North American investors did seek a higher level of short term returns than our continental cousins due to the more direct relationship between profitability and share price. On the continent there was traditionally a higher level of cross ownership of shares between shareholders and providers of finance such as the banks or cooperative type organisations and even governments. Hence capital was/is less fluid - it is more difficult to bale out when times get tough. As a consequence there is a closer alignment of interest in longer term returns and growth in value of shares. The japanese and korean manufacturers still have a much higher level of cross ownership, not just in terms of finance but also across industries. These networks (keiretsu - Japan, Chaebol - Korea) are well established and provide a strong competitive advantage when combined with an active government overview as well. Daewoo in Korea for example had interests in automotive, shipbuilding, electronics, machinery etc and demonstrated one of the disadvantages of such arrangements - inflexibility and isolation from market interests leading to dubious or even corrupt behaviour. Others such as Mitsubishi have continued to prosper. There is a narrow line between benevolent protectionism and lack of competitiveness. Panasonic is a good example of the former, Sony has lost position and the US have a strong tendency to prop up lameduck industries as they become increasingly uncompetitive eg steel. it will be fascinating to see how the ongoing decline of Ford and GM eventually resolves itself, at the same time as Korean and in due course Chinese automotive manufacturers gain ground. Margaret Thatcher is conventionally reviled for killing off Britain's metal bashing industry but this, together with other reforms such as trade union legislation, was fundamental to the economic prosperity we have enjoyed. We may not own our car making plants but we have provided an attractive home for them and the jobs and services that go with them.
MGs
|
well. Daewoo in Korea for example had interests in automotive shipbuilding electronics machinery etc and
MoD are about to order some fleet refuelling ships - a few weeks back said British Aerospace will tender but they will sub it to Daewoo as there is insufficient shipbuilding capability in the UK - now it is not 100 super ships of 100K tonnes but 6 of about 10K tonnes.
I am old enough (61) to remember the names of 30 shipyards on the Clyde of which there are now 3 - BAe owned Yarrows and BAe owned Fairrfields + a small privately owned yard at Port Glasgow (Fergusons) who make a living (sorry lose money) building ships for the West Coast Islands off Scotland.
|
|
|
Indeed some have read "Working for Ford". And remember the occasions when middle management (MM) were said to arrange (just following orders) an unjust sacking to foment a walk-out. Oddly, these awful events seem to have occurred when Ford had to cut back on production. A poisonous atmosphere is rarely due to one side alone, I'd suggest. IIRC, from writings from former "associates" on the production line, Toyota MM are not exactly benign to those on the line who are out of favour.
|
>>The underlying problem is that we do not see the value in manufacturing <<
For all the clever financial and political comments (its all the fault of the unions!) aired I think the above line stands out above all and says everything it needs to about the state of british manufacturing and the economy.
And yes I know you can point to loads of figures that show how well the economy is doing etc. Is it really? I have to ask?
|
I wonder why people fret that we don't "own" our own car industry. There seems to be an inherent suspicion by some that if we're not metal bashing somehow we are not making money as a nation. I'd much rather the country specialised in "products" in the City with 20-40% profit margins than hard manufactured products that might earn 5% profits. I'd rather the Agnellis and the State of Baden Wurtemburgs of this world continue to pour money into things like Fiat and VW than actually make investments in other industries with much better returns. I'm never quite sure why the likes of Fiat still exist and who bank rolled them thus far or who bank rolled VW through the early 70s or Peugeot through the late 70s and early 80s. There would have been much better places for their money.
|
>>There seems to be an inherent suspicion by some that if we're not metal bashing somehow we are not making money as a nation<<
Because, contrary to city profits, the metal bashing employs people and ends up making real money for the workers and therefore the economy. It actually creates an economy based on something. A bit like China in fact! Dont tell me they are wrong by making so much stuff because thats where all my pension funds are!
I personally prefer to see people working (and therefore prouder of what they own, and where they live, and how they act) than not working, and being told how "well off they are" because the country is making so much money.
The only problem with this city money is that its only the 10% of people who really see it!
|
So all these service industries do not employ anyone...ask around your friends and relatives...how many work in a manufacturing business...bet it's less than 15%, in a bigger city might be below 5%...how many are making more money in real terms than their father ever did in a manufacturing firm? That's because they are working in a fundamentally more profitable enterprise that has more margin that pays higher salaries and returns.
Services do produce real money. What is the difference between:
Person A produces metal bash product....production cost £10 and sale price of £20?
Person B employed in service industry sells product with production cost of £10 and sale price of £20....
Nothing. Same value added. Same profitability
However in the real world I'd see that Person A would be in a business where the costs will have risen to £15 and the sale price dropped to £15.50 due to competition from China....and Person B sells product for £25 and makes more money...
We should do whatever it is that makes the most money. End of story. Likewise for any other investor.
|
Around here its all warehouses and it doesnt pay welll!
But its ok the economy is doing well. But all my customers earning around £16k dont see it quite like that either!
|
>>But all my customers earning around £16k
The jobs which pay more are available (have been for a long time, and probably will be for some time yet) for those who are prepared to work for the qualifications, and move to where the work is.
Had I sat back, and expected work to come to me, I expect I might now be complaining about the lack of opportunity in rural East Lancashire (as do many of my peer group who remain there).
One reason why we don't do particularly well in engineering is that we have a fundamental gap in our education provision. There are engineering courses which are quite vocational, there are those which are extremely theoretical and numerical, but, there isn't much provision of courses which offer a good combination of engineering AND management. Where management is taught, it's a sad tack on extra from the university's business school, which pushes inapplicable academic theory rather than practical techniques. What's needed is management for engineers, taught primarily by engineering managers.
The provision of engineering education is really suffering at the moment - they are expensive courses to teach, they aren't glamorous, they have high drop out rates because they are difficult, and many of the newer universities find there's more demand for softer (felt-tip fairy!) design courses.
I do agree with ukbeefy though - we should do what pays the most, and I can't see that being making cars.
|
I'd much rather the country specialised in "products"in the City with 20-40% profit margins than hard manufactured products that might earn 5%
What you are talking about here is economic wealth for a select few..i.e city traders & fatcats with inflated salaries & bonuses who retire at 45 with a golden handshake & then take their money out of the country to spend all day on a golf course in Spain.
In the meantime, real industry with real skills, real apprenticeships & real wages goes to the wall, leaving behind the so called "service industry" Much of which is unable (unlike manufacturing) to export its services and can only trade within the local economy. The only true engine of economics is manufacturing & industry, everything else is just the froth on top.
Of course this decline in manufacturing is not isolated to the automotive industry. It is endemic throughout British industry. I work for a heavy engineering company that was once one of the major employers in the area. At its peak in the 50's it employed almost 5000 people, had its own railway sidings, foundery & apprentice school. Today it is a shadow of its former self, with much of the original works either derelict or sold off for housing or out of town shopping.
I have seen first hand the negative (and in my opinion unsustainable effect ) this service industry has not only on the local but also wider economy. All we have left here are distribution centres and minimum wage call centres.
Edited by craneboy on 28/03/2008 at 23:56
|
The definitive answer to the original question posed here comes from Jeremy Clarkson's documentary "Who killed the British motor Industry?":
www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAWH0EfMDfc
One of the best documentaries he ever made - well researched and reasoned and I can't find anything to disagree with.
|
I am not an economist, but I do think that a country cannot simply survive on service industry for very long period. A healthy economy needs some manufacturing industries as well.
And those who complaint that British people don't buy British cars, I like to ask them what is (rather "was") the "affordable" British car a common people could ever buy (in recent years)??
An average German can buy Merc or VW easily. Same for Seat, Renault, Honda, Toyota etc.
But how many common people in this country can afford Rolls Royce, Bentley, Aston or even Jag? Agreed, MG Rover was only affordable British car in recent years but we all knew about their reliability.
Am I wrong in saying that British car manufacturers seldom cared for common people? They always targeted niche markets unlike the German/French/American/Japanese etc.
|
Having spent along time studying various economies around the world, I know of no other country that thinks it can survive on a service economy alone.
It will catch up with us - I have no doubt about that.
We cannot all find employment from just servicing each other - you have to have something tangible to make money with as a nation - be that manufacturing or natural resources.
That is the only way you make real wealth - if you try and survive on servicing alone your margins will just reduce over time - you really don't have anything that people really need or want.
|
Huw Beynon's Working for Ford is a classic and a must read for those not old enough to remember the Winter of Discontent the Three Day Week the power cuts the unburied dead the mountains of rubbish and NHS staff blocking entrances to hospitals.
Huw was as left as a leftie could be but even he couldn't gloss over the sheer insanity of the unions at that time.
Many years since I read it but the part that always stick with me is that the Brothers in the Ford paint shop were throwing fire bombs at each other for amusement. Management told them to stop and were ignored. Management had to get a union shop steward to stop this potentially lethal activity and the money quote was 'OK we'll take it from you but not from them'. So poor as management undoubtedly was the argument that they never even got the chance to manage could easily be made.
Clarkson is right in that many were guilty but the key assassins of BML and therefore the UK car industry were the unions and those if us who were there know its true.
|
Can't agree with that at all Niallster - the unions did not go out on strike because they were treated in a fair way by the managment team were they ?
The japanese and koreans have all had major issues with unions but the managment teams demonstrated some leadership and sorted it out.
It takes leadership on both parts and neither showed it.
I think Clarkson was right in his views.
Look what happens when you get a UK unionised/represented workforce working with Japanese trained management in Honda, Toyota and Nissan.
Harmony and the some of the best quality cars you can buy.
The workforce know they will always be taken care of and they have a say in what they do, and so they adopt a partnership approach. Toyota never make anyone redundant - the last time they did, the company CEO resigned in shame just after WW2.
Can you see any UK manager operating with such integrity and responsibility.
No - they all see redundancy as a means of increasing shareholder returns in the short term.
I speak as a senior manager as well in a blue chip company so please don't start accusing me of being a leftie union supporter - I can just see it for what happened.
Edited by Pendlebury on 29/03/2008 at 14:28
|
Pendlebury,
None of the unions of the time went on strike for fair treatment by management.
Yes excuses for strikes were used but the aim was never an extra 1% on the wages it was:
"To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service."
Getting off topic but are you really suggesting that the miners strike was to stop closure of uneconomic pits? Scargill himself said repeatedly on camera he was out to defeat Thatherism.
Different times.
|
In 1945/46 VW came under British administration. Millions of pounds were ploughed into the heavily bombed Wolfsburg plant to get it operational again. At the same time, both the US & Britain were rebuilding Japans shattered infrastructure.
A couple of decades later, and we find Leyland Truck & Bus helping the struggling Dutch firm DAF back onto its feet...The same DAF who were to take them over in 1987. You have to laugh at the comic irony of it all!! Where did we really go wrong?
I think the main problem has been a lack of political will in this country. Successive governments have alternated between actively trying to destroy our volume car industry, or have turned an apathetic blind eye to its problems....Case in point; Northern Rock was immediately nationalised, yet nothing was done to try to save Rover..utterly disgraceful!!!
|
|
To be honest there was far more at stake with the Northen Rock collapse than there ever was with the Rover disaster. Rover was a sad loss, Northen Rock would have been totally catastrophic - the whole finance infrastructure of this country would have gone with it.
|
To be honest there was far more at stake with the Northen Rock collapse than there ever was with the Rover disaster.
Yes, a good point. Rover was certainly not on the scale of NR. Yet for Britain to lose its last remaining volume car builder was still a massively damaging blow, both in financial and prestigous terms , and I believe more should have been done. I certainly think it summed up the governments attitude towards industry in general.
|
>>Yet for Britain to lose its last remaining volume car builder was still a massively damaging blow, both in financial and prestigous terms , and I believe more should have been done.
Why? It was a failing company, why pour taxpayers' money into it? If the cars were any good, they'd have sold well.
|
It does seem that rather alot of people become fixated on this 'mass car maker' concept as a sort of cross between a bell weather of economic & technological strength & symbol of national virility. The first is outdated, the second - just plain daft.
We do (or did until very recently when statistics were available) export more, per captita, than Japan & are the 5th (or maybe just edging 6th) richest country in the world. The service, financial & cultural/entertainment industries don't in some way detract or 2nd-best the 'smoke-stack' industries - they are paid for in the same hard cash - and those industries will persist & likely expand in the future. If people care to examine what exactly large scale (notionally indigeneously 'owned' ) car manufacture actually contributes to those much admired European economies they may well find they don't automatically confer riches - many are subsidised (directly or indirectly) & rarely pay dividends to shareholders - what good is that?
What I think is happening is that some make this psychological link between their personal 'relationship' with & concept of, 'car' & extraploate it to the level of national machismo (or supposedl lack of, in the UK's case) & don't or can't see the broader picture.
|
>>don't or can't see the broader picture.
During the late Eighties, I worked for Austin Rover in their Cowley plant. I remember the engineers and apprentices (as I was then) all been ushered into a presentation by a big cheese shortly after the British Aerospace takeover. The main point he made was that the returns were so poor that if the factory were viewed as an investment opportunity in comparsion with a deposit account that none of us in the audience would even dream of putting our own money in.
|
someone up above summed it up for me.......The average Brit, for some u/k reason, doesn't buy British
i'm not suggesting you should buy absolute tripe if that's the only British option, but how many people nowadays actively look for a British product...mine, car wise, have been:
1990 - 1994...... Triumph 2000
1994-1996.........Rover 414
1996- 2002........Rover 620
2002- present... Jag S Type...(I know it was until this week American owned, but it was built
here by British workers and has British heritage)
fair enough the Triumph was a bit old, but the Rover's were perfectly acceptable cars (being basically Hondas) and at that time were better than the Ford/Vauxhall products...yet in the sales charts they were well behind, so the public have only themselves to blame.
How many backroomers actively support British products?
|
I do try to support British products where i can Westpig.
Car wise i had a sort of eurika moment back in the late 70's or early 80's, when i realised i was on first name terms at the parts dept of whichever monstrosity i happened to be repairing at the time, usually ford or leyland/ rover
Whilst i learnt a lot from the very sensible Indian community of east Northants, who ran their datsuns and toyota's for donkeys years, rarely serviced them, absolutely riddled with rust but still started first time and everything electrical still working fine.
No fools them Indian fella's when it comes to which motors to buy, and i still keep an eye on which vehicles those chaps run.
Your last sentence says it all really, in the respect that honda put the quality back into rover's, as you would know with a very fine 620.
I had a 92 rover 827 manual, very rare went like a scalded cat and totally reliable.
Only trouble is how often were you disappointed by the rover dealer, and wished you'd actually bought the honda equivalent.
My first foray into total reliability came in i think 83 when i bought a 2 year old datsun bluebird estate, couldn't believe it, just never went wrong, and yes boring, cos i had to find jobs to do on it, bizarre as that may sound.
I too believe that British workers can be some of the best in the world when properly led, and that is always a problem. Idiots that can see no further than their own ego's both on the shop floor and in the boardroom, apart from the greed that tends to ruin most things. Unions had an important place just like good management.
As the lads have said, buy a car made at toyota burnaston and its made as well as any, and they still make a profit.
Maybe its only how i feel but my own money i want a vehicle thats been designed by people who want it to run for many years trouble free, and thats been tested for millions of miles by the maker, not released early and allow the the customer to complete the R and D.
|
not released early and allow the the customer to complete the R and D.
... like the baggage system in T5.
This is another reason why Japan rarely had actually invented things, yet their products (not just cars) are superb.
Edited by movilogo on 30/03/2008 at 10:31
|
Lots of of British cars were seemingly just thrown together on the production line allegedly with scant regard for quality or respect for the `British` buyers.
Said customers stopped buying the cars and watched with varying levels of sympathy as workers were later seen on TV leaving the plants for the last time carrying their toolboxes.
But with long term memory being pervasive over decades "buying British" with one`s own hard earned cash became a minority choice.
Basically the factories seemed to get back what they had been giving out. Or would it be better to say `respect` works both ways?
Must surely have been at least some dedicated people working there and full respect to them
But did the production line workers buy their own product and if so what measures did they take to protect themselves from their own work?
Was there a special facility where they could make a special effort on particular cars on the line and then buy that particular one? Or Saturday morning `clinics` where they put their own cars to right next to a union halted production line?
Don`t regard this as an anti British rant. Just comment from someone whose new British cars were riddled with production line build faults, some of which seemed intentional.
Buying European/Japanese, (bikes) i have found the odd fault, but nothing put there on purpose, to knowingly set up the new owner.
Buy British? Sure, bought a meat pie yesterday ;)
---Times have changed---but memory hasn`t-----
Regards
|
Sadly, many people would have to agree with your view oilrag. I remember my father who loved cars and had mainly been a fan of British ones, switching his allegience to Volvo around 1969 and never going back to British until he retired in '76. He then bought a Van den Plas Princess 1300 as a retirement gift to himself and re-aquainted himself with British "workmanship" of the time. The sad thing is that had one of our major manufacturers survived it would almost certainly be producing world class cars by now.
I would truly like to support local businesses and do try to when possible but supply chains are so complex and globally driven now that it is almost impossible to do this exclusively.
|
|
The ultimate irony is that one motor car maker was famously written off by Harvey-Jones, they are still British owned and still making cars. Morgan of course.
|
|
I think my point Niallster is that for every story about the way the unions behaved there will be an equal and opposite story about how the management team behaved in a ridiculous manner.
Edited by Pendlebury on 30/03/2008 at 12:27
|
So the lament for a British car industry lays with the workers and management who produced shoddy goods, and the British people who didn't support the vehicles in large enough numbers.
Even now, you go to Italy and they support FIAT by buying their cars in huge numbers, even though I wouldn't touch one of their cars with a barge pole.
As has been already said, we don't have British badged cars of our own any more for the simplest of reasons. They were pilloried by the media and no-one would buy them.
|
It is not my intention to kick off the Rover was crap thread again but NO DAN PLEASE NO.
It was not the media that buried Rover it was the rubbish they produced.
They only ever sold at massive discounts to car fleets who were ordered to buy British (eg: British Gas when I worked for them). Once the consumer had a choice they were gone.
NOT THE MEDIA DAN NO PLEASE.
|
Its Ben. Not Dan.
The media were anti union in the 70s and 80s. Look at Leyland or the miners.
Yes they produced rubbish, but as has been said, if people invested in the product, eventually they would have delivered a reliable worthy product. As was the case when Rover faded. So I suppose you want something for nothing. As has been said all this predjudice was in the 70s and early 80s. Time has moved on and they should have been supported and given a fighting chance. The workers and management at the death were online to work hard and produce good ranges. But through lack of investment this was wasted.
The unions in the past decimated all manufacturing industy in this country, not just the car, so can we move on from the politics of thirty years ago.
|
It wasnt the media? It was the rubbish they produced?
But they were virtually identical to Honda (who are highly rated by the people that buy them?
The only (and i mean only) problem with rover (later cars) was the K series engine; which was rushed into production before full development had been done. Thats obviously a union fault not a management one!
And because this forum is about cars the idea of british manufacture becomes involved around british cars; but if you widen the thread to british manufacture of any sort then you see the same problem everywhere. we dont (and apparantly dont want to ) make anything any more in quantity.
I am not an economist but I dont see any forward thinking country or growing economy with the same outlook as ours (as somebody else posted above).
The fact we are 5th (or 6th) richest nation in my book means we are going down the list and not up it too! But as I have said before and was echoed by others; the economy is great for the top 10%. For us mere mortals down the ladder a bit it doesnt actually mean anything!
From my point of view, give people jobs, let that create the wealth and we are ALL better off !
But as always the short term outlook (bigger short term profits) means a few quick profits here and we can continue to bury our heads in the sand !
What a future!
|
Unions, workers, management, buyers, press... Lets face it that was us British, really wasn`t it?
Viewed from Japan it probably looked like a self inflicting national farce.
Edited by oilrag on 30/03/2008 at 19:27
|
We do have a few left!!
IIRC the mayor of Solihull proudly has a Range Rover as mayoral car. I wonder if the same is/was true for local council leaders in Caterham, Blackpool (TVR), Malvern (Morgan)... ? I suppose not, since Coventry's aldermen eschew the locally built LTi and Carbodies taxis... Can't somehow see Southampton's dignitaries emerging from a Transit to open the odd fete, either...
Sigh.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
