Thatcher

The issue that I raised that you have skirted around was that
of p1ss taking UK unions in the 70's.
I don't think unions are by definition harmful - they are much stronger
in Australia for instance, but then again, they have never taken the p1ss.
That is what happened in the UK, so the only option to sort
out the problem was to remove the power they had.

Yes you agree that they had to be dealt with, but you don't agree with
how Thatcher did it.
The softly softly, involvement approach had been tried, they abused it.

A large proportion of the strong and mixed opinion with Thatcher does
centre around the handling of the union issue.



So, from the quote above, employment numbers are based on revenue.
Yet inflation matching pay is a given regardless of revenue.
You don't see a paradox there?
That means joblosses as revenue can not support the payroll.

In recent years, Ford UK plants have gone at times to 4 day week
(i.e. pay cut to preserve skill base and jobs).
Ford's four-day week | Autocar
The exact inverse of your suggestion.

Which also points, not only to your incorrect conclusions,
it also shows that Thatchers approach of castrating the unions
by force was the only option.
They brought it on themselves by being unrealistic given the economic conditions.
The current Ford example shows how they should have acted back then.


I fail to see how that is any different than theoretical communism.


Yes I do disagree with how Thatcher dealt with it. That is the point. Could have been done much better. Must try harder.

I am not supporting the unions either. It is purely one of approach.

British managers are bunch of dollops who were taking the mickey yes along with the unions. When ever the competition came up with a new model, new engine, more reliable it was always the unions who woudln't work harder, faster or cheaper - since the beginning of time.

Look at ship-building - in order to compete they kept reducing wages. It was the same response in cars. You too are skirting the issue. Management lead, workers follow.

I like the German model (surprise surprise) where unions and banks sit on the decision making body of large enterprises.

So you like the way Thatcher dealt with the unions - close down industry and make everyone unemployed. That is called CUT YOUR NOSE OFF TO SPITE YOUR FACE!


I'm not soft, red, socialist or communist either. Just a manager. I know man management and I know project management. There is a distinction on when to crack the whip on show stoppers and went to drive men to meet targets.

As for the idea you have to start from somewhere. That somewhere is by motivating your troops first. Men don't go to work on empty stomachs. Fill stomach first then work.

If you work your men first and then fill their stomach - output is effected. Speaks volumes on emphasis to approach.

Do you not see the distinction?

The emphasis is on faith and belief one puts on the labour force will be the driving point. Failure to deliver on expectations is a pretty powerful social force.

Something that Thatcher as per evidence - saw and thought nothing of.

That's the problem with our leaders and management - bloody minded, opinionated souls. As Nigel Lawson put it - she would listen to some experimental economist instead of her cabinet or chancellor. So he resigned. After much trying he resigned. Nigel Lawson is a very clever man. It was the way you stood up to Maggie. He also did it in the interest of the UK finance industry as Government policy was creating confusion and in a muddle.

This is what people are writing about her saying how fantastic and strong she was. Unbelievable as CV would put it. Hey but she was strong! Oh all right then bless her cotton socks.

I'm always impressed by German and Japanese work ethic and how they take pride in their work. 4 to 8 times as many engineers as British ones, why is that? Because they are rewarded and their point of view respected.

Sadly LV if out of the arguement the only observation you draw is that we are still feeding next round of inflation then you miss the point.

One more point - as per pretty much most of the UK population the unions had their day and they were on their last legs imo. People were fed up. Time and sentiment was not the same as during Heath's time. (Heath loathed Thatcher too by the way - perhaps he was sexist or perhaps he just thought she wouldn't listen and got fed up and became resentful - just like your average labourer who doesn't get listened to by management. We are not that different are we?)

So there could easily have been new laws drawn up and passed through parliament. As was done. She could have listened to her cabinet as alarms were being raised by Heseltine and other members. Unions in the 80s would not have been the same as in the 70s. Nothing remains the same.


They are now talking about restoring Balance to the UK industry. By that they are talking about new manufacturing.


To your last statement - I'm not talking theoretical communism. I'm talking German and Japanese mode of operation.

Listen, cooperate and excel as a team.
 
I'm always impressed by German and Japanese work ethic and how they take pride in their work. 4 to 8 times as many engineers as British ones, why is that? Because they are rewarded and their point of view respected.

I take it you've never heard of Ricardo engineering then:
United Kingdom - Ricardo
Capabilities and Case Studies - Ricardo

They design engines, transmissions, even exhaust note acoustics for a
large proportion of the global automotive industry and wider engineering industry (including German and Japanese).

World leading technological and engineering capability is alive and kicking in the UK I assure you.

Its the cost base / quality assurance and unions (to a lesser extent these days) that is the issue.
The simple fact is the UK is not an attractive manufacturing base for
multi nationals.


Yes I do disagree with how Thatcher dealt with it. That is the point. Could have been done much better. Must try harder.

Look at ship-building - in order to compete they kept reducing wages. It was the same response in cars. You too are skirting the issue. Management lead, workers follow.

I like the German model (surprise surprise) where unions and banks sit on the decision making body of large enterprises.

So you like the way Thatcher dealt with the unions - close down industry and make everyone unemployed. That is called CUT YOUR NOSE OFF TO SPITE YOUR FACE!
Well you've given one example of how you would have dealt with it,
which had a gaping flaw.
You now go back to the familiar turf of criticising without offering
any other workable option...must try harder :)

If the industries in question were economically unsustainable,
and would not change due to dinosaur union elements,
what then is the course of action to take.
All you offered in reply was a wall of text with no practical,
defined solution.

The UK industrial problems were so ingrained, there was little choice
but to scratch them and start again.
Yes I concede that the failure of efficient manufacturing to rise from
the ashes of BL and so on was not the intention.
That does not mean the 70's situation could carry on.
As I've already said, you completely miss the point of global competition,
and the UK's attractiveness as a manufacturing base.
 
I take it you've never heard of Ricardo engineering then:
United Kingdom - Ricardo
Capabilities and Case Studies - Ricardo

They design engines, transmissions, even exhaust note acoustics for a
large proportion of the global automotive industry and wider engineering industry (including German and Japanese).

World leading technological and engineering capability is alive and kicking in the UK I assure you.

Its the cost base / quality assurance and unions (to a lesser extent these days) that is the issue.
The simple fact is the UK is not an attractive manufacturing base for
multi nationals.



Well you've given one example of how you would have dealt with it,
which had a gaping flaw.
You now go back to the familiar turf of criticising without offering
any other workable option...must try harder :)

If the industries in question were economically unsustainable,
and would not change due to dinosaur union elements,
what then is the course of action to take.
All you offered in reply was a wall of text with no practical,
defined solution.

The UK industrial problems were so ingrained, there was little choice
but to scratch them and start again.
Yes I concede that the failure of efficient manufacturing to rise from
the ashes of BL and so on was not the intention.
That does not mean the 70's situation could carry on.
As I've already said, you completely miss the point of global competition,
and the UK's attractiveness as a manufacturing base.

I think he likes you.
He doesn't even reply to my examples :LOL:

Oops:idea:, wait a min....maybe he doesn't have the answers.

Tell you this mind. If he was my manager i'd run rings round him fosho:LOL:
 
I take it you've never heard of Ricardo engineering then:
United Kingdom - Ricardo
Capabilities and Case Studies - Ricardo

They design engines, transmissions, even exhaust note acoustics for a
large proportion of the global automotive industry and wider engineering industry (including German and Japanese).

World leading technological and engineering capability is alive and kicking in the UK I assure you.

Its the cost base / quality assurance and unions (to a lesser extent these days) that is the issue.
The simple fact is the UK is not an attractive manufacturing base for
multi nationals.



Well you've given one example of how you would have dealt with it,
which had a gaping flaw.
You now go back to the familiar turf of criticising without offering
any other workable option...must try harder :)

If the industries in question were economically unsustainable,
and would not change due to dinosaur union elements,
what then is the course of action to take.
All you offered in reply was a wall of text with no practical,
defined solution.

The UK industrial problems were so ingrained, there was little choice
but to scratch them and start again.
Yes I concede that the failure of efficient manufacturing to rise from
the ashes of BL and so on was not the intention.
That does not mean the 70's situation could carry on.
As I've already said, you completely miss the point of global competition,
and the UK's attractiveness as a manufacturing base.


Interesting program on TV

The Fall of the Iron Lady | Radio Times


More multinationals choose to operate from the UK than Germany or France in order to have access to the European market. Why is that? Unions in France and Spain just as feisty and non-compromising still today. How can they produce cars and the UK not. I find this troubling to accept with all sincerity.

If you pose this point in defence of justifying decimation of UK manufacturing base how do you explain German, French and Italians producing cars to this day. What can we learn from them?

Gaping flaw? You say :confused:
 
More multinationals choose to operate from the UK than Germany or France in order to have access to the European market. Why is that?

Well thats easy. They have done the calculations and they know that the European experiment WILL fail. So they figure....set up in the UK probably save some money down the line with moving costs later.:)
 
More multinationals choose to operate from the UK than Germany or France in order to have access to the European market. Why is that? Unions in France and Spain just as feisty and non-compromising still today. How can they produce cars and the UK not. I find this troubling to accept with all sincerity.

If you pose this point in defence of justifying decimation of UK manufacturing base how do you explain German, French and Italians producing cars to this day. What can we learn from them?

Gaping flaw? You say :confused:
Its simple, UK owned car manufacturing is the point of discussion.
Foreign working practices and man management show that the UK
can produce cars in foreign owned plants.

So in that sense you are correct, although as in the Ford example I posted earlier
pressure to reduce costs is ever present - a proportion of Transit production
moved to Turkey for instance:
Ford's four-day week | Autocar

I'm not saying manufacturing is not possible in the UK.
The point is that costs need to be lowered to compete,
and in the case of BL, despite several incarnations as Austin Rover, and Rover grp,
the working practices at all levels were too entrenched to turn it around.
Austin Rover Group - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hence why I say a hardline approach was the only choice.
Propping anything up with govt. subsidy is just a money pit,
if the company / industry in question cannot survive on its own,
its ludicrous to keep it going artificially.
 
The issue that I raised that you have skirted around was that
of p1ss taking UK unions in the 70's.

Out of interest, what do you define as ****-taking with regard to unions? For example, for me, the London underground union is ****-taking, with their every so often one or two day strikes, that don't really affect their lives. Whereas a group that is willing to go unpaid for months or even a year to the point that they and their family suffer poverty, is obviously a real issue - whether you agree with them or not.
 
Out of interest, what do you define as ****-taking with regard to unions? For example, for me, the London underground union is ****-taking, with their every so often one or two day strikes, that don't really affect their lives. Whereas a group that is willing to go unpaid for months or even a year to the point that they and their family suffer poverty, is obviously a real issue - whether you agree with them or not.

In the 70's with BL, pretty much any reason to stike, didn't take much,
5 mins less for a tea break which was not a legal requirement anyway,
just a courtesy.

The pathetic but True story of British Leyland.
Derek Robinson (trade unionist) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
BBC NEWS | UK | Magazine | Your 1970s: Strikes and blackouts

The real problem is they just would not accept a change in terms and conditions
and pay given the economic conditions.

The reverse is now true today:
Ford's four-day week | Autocar

The miners strikes were similar, unrealitic pay demands given economic conditions:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/january/9/newsid_2515000/2515917.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/march/6/newsid_4207000/4207111.stm
Those strikes paralysed the UK:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-Day_Week

Which ultimately lead to the final showdown:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_miners'_strike_(1984–1985)
 
Last edited:
From the BL link.

the design team wanted to be different with the Allegro so what did they come up with? A square steering wheel! Now call me old fashioned but does the word wheel not imply a round object?

British Leyland cont

The square steering wheels were all replaced free of charge if you didn’t like a square wheel!

:LOL::LOL::LOL:
 

Attachments

  • 618px-4tehlulz.jpg
    618px-4tehlulz.jpg
    46 KB · Views: 159
In the 70's with BL, pretty much any reason to stike, didn't take much,
5 mins less for a tea break which was not a legal requirement anyway,
just a courtesy.

The pathetic but True story of British Leyland.
Derek Robinson (trade unionist) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
BBC NEWS | UK | Magazine | Your 1970s: Strikes and blackouts

The real problem is they just would not accept a change in terms and conditions
and pay given the economic conditions.

The reverse is now true today:
Ford's four-day week | Autocar

That was a time of heavy strikes, and one would have to ask why. There are multiple reasons for things, but I think we'd find that inflation and economic conditions were two major factors. But the government is largely responsible for inflation, and somewhat responsible for economic conditions. So then what are we really talking about? You can't divorce the actions of these unions from the government policy that came before.
 
From the BL link.

the design team wanted to be different with the Allegro so what did they come up with? A square steering wheel! Now call me old fashioned but does the word wheel not imply a round object?

British Leyland cont

The square steering wheels were all replaced free of charge if you didn’t like a square wheel!

:LOL::LOL::LOL:

:LOL:

austin-allegro-06.jpg

For anyone that doesn't know, the hideous contraption above was on sale
at the same time as the golf below...:LOL:
Great advert for nationalised UK car industry not...
X4vJ3qid.jpg
 
Its simple, UK owned car manufacturing is the point of discussion.
Foreign working practices and man management show that the UK
can produce cars in foreign owned plants.

So in that sense you are correct, although as in the Ford example I posted earlier
pressure to reduce costs is ever present - a proportion of Transit production
moved to Turkey for instance:
Ford's four-day week | Autocar

I'm not saying manufacturing is not possible in the UK.
The point is that costs need to be lowered to compete,
and in the case of BL, despite several incarnations as Austin Rover, and Rover grp,
the working practices at all levels were too entrenched to turn it around.
Austin Rover Group - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hence why I say a hardline approach was the only choice.
Propping anything up with govt. subsidy is just a money pit,
if the company / industry in question cannot survive on its own,
its ludicrous to keep it going artificially.

If Ford wishes to distribute production to take advantages of lower costs internationally it should be allowed to do so.

If Ford wishes to run 4 / 3 day weeks in response to recent down turn in car demand then that's a good idea too.

Regarding supporting the industry, structural adjustments take time. Even if the move away from a manufacturing to a service based industry is desired that change should be managed and supported.

My points remain fundamentally, that manufacturing base needs to be;
a) be maintained in the national interest
b) re-established
c) supported

I'm having trouble listening to these statements about how Thatcher saw what needed to be done and did the difficult thing and fixed our broken UK that wasn't working.

UK was working just not well. She didn't fix anything. She scrapped it. They call it the free marketeers.


Good management and leadership would work at these problems not nuke the industry because of poor labour practices.

Once again look at our nearest neighbours and how they deal with these issues. Look at market leader, copy, emulate and compete.
 
That was a time of heavy strikes, and one would have to ask why. There are multiple reasons for things, but I think we'd find that inflation and economic conditions were two major factors. But the government is largely responsible for inflation, and somewhat responsible for economic conditions. So then what are we really talking about? You can't divorce the actions of these unions from the government policy that came before.

Global economic conditions:
Nixon Shock - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
1973 oil crisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
1970s energy crisis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
1973
Stagflation in the 1970s

Union demands of the time were divorced of reality - fact is times were tough.
 
:LOL:

austin-allegro-06.jpg

For anyone that doesn't know, the hideous contraption above was on sale
at the same time as the golf below...:LOL:
Great advert for nationalised UK car industry not...
X4vJ3qid.jpg

Never quite got my hands on a GTI but wanted one...was fortunate that I had the good sense not to have an ALL-AGRO as it was affectionately known as back in the day.
:LOL:
 
:LOL:

austin-allegro-06.jpg

For anyone that doesn't know, the hideous contraption above was on sale
at the same time as the golf below...:LOL:
Great advert for nationalised UK car industry not...
X4vJ3qid.jpg


Quote from one just blog.
Interesting piece, and I can agree on the woeful quality of BL products. But the Marina was launch in 1970, and for a long time was Britain's best seller. The Metro arrived in 1980, and was also an overwhelming success.

BL's demise was caused by poor management, they were responsible for risable product planning, and for losing control of the factorys to the militants. The K series produced class leading power and low weight, but it was poor production design and an inability to introduce and effective fix that give it the reputation for unreliability.


Issue is trade unions had little or no say in the research, design, styling or R&D that goes into reliability and testing of the car.

They are only the production line.

It is not new concept that the Japanese were able to produce 4 models to 1 of BL. Same engine with tweaks but different styling.

That is possible with advanced planning and design / styling and good management. The production line is the end and final determinant with little significance in the show room.

Japan invested in R&D and reliability with engineers continuously testing product and refining. What was management doing with reports and reviews and engineer input. Did they not realise Italians had patented style and flare.

Sat in meetings smoking cigars, having tea and biscuits and doing sod all sounds like. Lapse of judgement. Inability to gauge changes in the industry. Took eyes off the competition. Did they do any market surveys.

UK industry does not value engineers and this is reflected in wages. It is a fact Germany and Japan have 4-8 times more engineers.


Increasingly as part of Business Continuity and Disaster Recovery planning SWOT is introduced into the boardroom. I often shout about this and bang my drum at work but it seldom gets a look over. BC & DR is not just about IT and the enterprise. It should embody the whole aspect of Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats faced by any business. Business Continuity should be about what the label says. It's new and often gets laughed at. It should allow the Board to consider in a methodological way what if scenarios of a failed venture and how the business can react to ensure its survival. :idea:
 
Last edited:
If Ford wishes to distribute production to take advantages of lower costs internationally it should be allowed to do so.

If Ford wishes to run 4 / 3 day weeks in response to recent down turn in car demand then that's a good idea too.

Regarding supporting the industry, structural adjustments take time. Even if the move away from a manufacturing to a service based industry is desired that change should be managed and supported.

My points remain fundamentally, that manufacturing base needs to be;
a) be maintained in the national interest
b) re-established
c) supported

Agree, we are on the same page there.

I'm having trouble listening to these statements about how Thatcher saw what needed to be done and did the difficult thing and fixed our broken UK that wasn't working.

UK was working just not well. She didn't fix anything. She scrapped it. They call it the free marketeers.


Good management and leadership would work at these problems not nuke the industry because of poor labour practices.

Once again look at our nearest neighbours and how they deal with these issues. Look at market leader, copy, emulate and compete.

I'd disagree on it working , just not very well, it was broken.
3 day week.
No electricity.
Rubbish in the streets.
No burials.
Poor quality industrial output.
Uneconomic mines.

That is broken.
You still have not said exactly how that could have been tackled
any other way.
Heath and Callaghan tried an approach more along the lines of your suggestion.
you may disagree with the negotiation tactics,it failed nevertheless.
Wilson wasn't tough enough which probably helped pave the way to winter of
discontent by bolstering union confidence:
Winter of Discontent - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 


Same thing applies I guess about executive salaries and bonus being divorced from company share valuations today.

FSA says we need this exceptional talent to steer us away from the financial crises.

Utility prices are also divorced from company profits too. Lucky for us we have good competitive practices to keep prices down otherwise we'd really be up the creek without a paddle. :cheesy:
 
Last edited:
Issue is trade unions had little or no say in the research, design, styling or R&D that goes into reliability and testing of the car.

The issue is also that unions did have a say in calling strikes and pay demands.
No one is saying BL management played no part in the BL debacle.
The whole entity was rotten to the core.
 
Top