Labour Conference....total maddness or even possable ?

[SantaBarbara]

Back in 1939 the Rover company assisted Frank Whitle to develop the early Jet engine

[sidicks]

s2art said:

Even the JD Power survey?

I said some.

But isn't the JD Power survey based on the results of those who choose to respond, rather than a random sample of owners?

[Earthdweller]

Breadvan72 said:

I think that Corbyn and McD are idiots, but leave them aside for a moment.

Back in the mid 1940s, lots of stuff was nationalised, and the sky failed to fall. Indeed, things went quite well for quite a bit.

I reiterate that Corbyn is an idiot.

Firstly I agree with your last sentence, but would also add a dangerous one

Re the nationalisation post war I don't think it can be compared to today in any way

The nations infrastructure was broken through years of chronic underfunding and then 6 years of war and not a few bombs

We had a lot of rebuilding to do which was still going on 20 years later, indeed rationing remained until the mid fifties

There was a massive need to organise and rebuild

70 years later the world is a very different place

[s2art]

sidicks said:

s2art said:

Even the JD Power survey?

I said some.

But isn't the JD Power survey based on the results of those who choose to respond, rather than a random sample of owners?

Sure. But if anything that means a good result as those who have something to complain about are more likely to respond.

[anonymous-user]

Digga said:

I remember seeing one when launched and thought it really did look like it could be a 'baby Bentley'. Was not bad, but just took so long to release times had moved on.

By the way, can we stop referring to BL please? Everyone who knows anything about the firm always called it "the Austin".

Not quite! "The Austin" meant Longbridge. Solihull was "the Rover". I am not sure whether Cowley was "the Morris". Source: my late father - BL factory sweeper, lathe operator, toolsetter, shop steward, work study man, industrial engineer, production manager, staff college lecturer, Edwardes-era mobile troubleshooting team member, Unipart subsidiary director, and eyeball to eyeballer of Red Robbo (Robbo was a big and strong man, and a man to stand his ground, but my dad had been a fast punching welterweight and was in good shape - I would have bet on my dad. They did not, quite, come to blows.).

Edited by anonymous-user on Monday 25th September 16:55

[anonymous-user]

Meanwhile its all kicking off with the BBC organising security guards for its pouting political correspondent

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/entertainment/celebrity/d...

[2xChevrons]

fido said:

Exactly, but they are all effectively making VW's - pretty much down to name badging and tweaks for different markets - shared platforms and engines. Sure for the premium brands you have some differentiation as that is where the profit is.

The problem BLMC (as it was prior to nationalisation) had was that BMC had completely avoided any sort of rationalisation from the merger of Austin and Nuffield in 1952. Going into 1969 the ex-BMC side of the business still had seperate dealer networks, each requiring their own version of each model (and the dealers could be just as strident as the workers' unions when it came to defending their status quo).

BLMC was still selling the Morris Minor (a pre-BMC product) *and* the Austin A40. They were also selling Austin and Morris (and MG/Wolseley/Riley/VdP) versions of the ADO16, which was supposed to replace the Minor/A40 but ended up barely outliving them. BMC wanted to offer people the choice of conventional RWD and high-tech FWD but allowed each marque to offer the choice, so you had a four-way range of small cars- Austin or Morris, RWD or FWD. It was the same with the ADO17, which stayed on alongside the ancient mid-size Farina models while the Ford Cortina cleaned up by being both modern *and* conventional rather than the either/or choice offered by BMC.

BMC's financial management was appalling, largely because the very good accounting/cost management system implemented at Nuffield (largely copied from GM) was ditched in favour of Austin's back-of-a-fag-packet methods which largely guessed at fixed overhead costs and made no allowances for warranty costs when costing a car or its components. BMC knew it had razor-thin profit margins so counted on making as many cars as possible. It poured £millions into new factories and production lines, then used them to build loss-making cars- the Mini, the ADO16, the Minor, the Westminster, they all lost money. So the very success of the Mini and the ADO16 was actually killing the manufacturer. The drive for high production numbers also put the unions in a very strong hand, as they and management were equally aware that the Corporation stood to lose far more from a stoppage than to agreeing to pay rises, and pay rises were prefferable to management than improving working conditions or investing in new tooling, which would have meant slowing or shutting lines at a time of peak demand. So that stored up lots of lovely problems for when the economy began to turn down and BMC couldn't just keep writing cheques on credit on the basis of future growth.

While government policy had its part (such as encouraging full employment and the building of new satellite factories in far-away areas with no real skill base -Rover and BMC both had transmission factories in South Wales and, most infamously, Rootes had to build the Imp at Linwood) the failure of BMC was a failure of private business.

As was the rapid collapse of BLMC. Although BMC and Leyland were brought together by government 'encouragement' Donald Stokes drastically overstated Leyland's profitability and, most importantly, its financial reserves. He wanted Leyland to become the GM of Britain and convinced the government, and the stock market, that Leyland had enough in the bank to suck up BMC's losses for a few years until he knocked heads together and sorted things out. This was also one of the reasons why there was a mass clearout of BMC engineers and managers after the Leyland takeover - as well as the fact that up to this point all they had done was run the company into the ground and produce bilge like the MGC, the Maxi and the 3-Litre, Stokes needed to convince investors that things were changing. This was partly why the Maxi was rushed into production before it was ready and why the Marina was produced on a crash program from the parts bin - BLMC needed new metal in the showrooms ASAP.

Of course BLMC didn't sort out the problems inhereted from BMC and just added more by throwing together MG and Triumph, and Rover and Jaguar. Really not surprising that the whole thing collapsed in six years.

[sidicks]

s2art said:

Sure. But if anything that means a good result as those who have something to complain about are more likely to respond.

Not necessarily!

[anonymous-user]

Sorry about previous post where I confused the national treasure David Jason with the political corespondent Laura Kuenssberg
Here is the frightening news of Lauras bodyguard

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/newslondon/bbc-poli...

I don't think Laura and David Jason share the SAME bodyguard yet

[anonymous-user]

SantaBarbara said:

There was someone called Stokes who owned Leyland Trucks, based strangely on the town of Leyland
The government encouraged him to merge with BMC

Stokes really was a whomping great knobhead!

[anonymous-user]

More fun though, eh?

[jmorgan]

How tight are the PFI contracts anyway? Thought it was Labour that brought them in (tory idea though?)

[anonymous-user]

Bit of both, but mainly New Labour. PPP also really rubbish. The contracts that I have seen vary - some are paper thin, others tightly drafted . Mega litigation costs and risks if torn up. Potential for companies to assert human rights claims in Strasbourg under A1P1 ECHR (I kid you not, corporates can and do win cases asserting human rights. A1P1 protects property rights, and a contract can be a form of property).

[anonymous-user]

Earthdweller said:

...

70 years later the world is a very different place

True, of course, but even in changed circumstances and perhaps even because of them there can still be a case for public control of certain key assets.

[ralphrj]

JagLover said:

Stickyfinger said:

BigRedMac wants to:

Nationalise RAIL : WATER : ENERGY : MAIL
Add to the above , Pay-Cap & "Controlling" Loans/costs

edit: NO pay cap for everybody....oh and we will control inflation as well !

and other spend spend spend, or is it investment.

Will Labour win votes ?
Is the above possible due to Eu rules, is this why they/we are going to also leave the Eu under Labour (if) they get in ?

What you didn't mention is that they are not necessarily going to pay full market value for them either. "Vote Labour for the confiscation of your pension fund"

Which is a breach of United Nations resolution 1803.

It strikes me that those on the far left that control the Labour party today seem to subscribe to a view that companies are owned by some sort of mythical elite that are currently enjoying all the benefits without paying any tax. The reality that shares in companies are held by pension funds and individuals etc is completely lost on them.

[anonymous-user]

Watching Corbin on the Andrew Marr show yesterday made me so cross, I started shouting at the TV. My wife came in to ask me why I was so upset.

He's a condescending, old communist tt who appeals to the clueless people who cannot remember how dire things were under a far left Labour government.

[anonymous-user]

Stickyfinger said:

Breadvan72 said:

True, of course, but even in changed circumstances and perhaps even because of them there can still be a case for public control of certain key assets.

Really, what ?

Water, rail, roads, possibly aspects of aviation, energy. Arguably too important to leave to competing market forces. Most of us have little problem accepting that police, prisons, law courts, and the main schools and hospitals should be under public control. Communism does not ensue. To switch countries for a moment, when hurricanes strike, are you going to leave it to the private sector to sort out the aftermath? The market is cool, but the market can't do everything.

[anonymous-user]

wormus said:

Watching Corbin on the Andrew Marr show yesterday made me so cross, I started shouting at the TV. My wife came in to ask me why I was so upset.

He's a condescending, old communist tt who appeals to the clueless people who cannot remember how dire things were under a far left Labour government.

This country has never had a far left Labour Government.

PS: His name is Corbyn. He is a pillock.

[otolith]

Murph7355 said:

There are a small number of sectors that were ridiculous to privatise IMO. Water is the standout one.

One respect in which the water privatisation was very successful is that prior to privatisation the water authorities were both poacher and gamekeeper where the quality of sewage effluent was concerned, and as a result the rivers I grew up around were running sewers. Once the regulatory duties passed to the National Rivers Authority, matters improved dramatically, and those rivers are now clean. It's possible that had this not happened, the Water Framework Directive could have been used to hold the government's feet to the flame over it in the 2000's, but the rivers got cleaned up in the 90's once that conflict of interest was removed.

[anonymous-user]

Breadvan72 said:

PS: His name is Corbyn. He is a pillock.

I was actually talking about this guy...