Brexit, for once some facts.

Zlatan

Esteemed Pedelecer
Nov 26, 2016
8,086
4,289
Vladimir Putin seems to manage it, he deducts 50% of all wealth from those willing to agree, 100% from those unwilling.
.
That's why so much Russian money is here.
And flecc , your explanation is simply your opinion. The entire UK car industry was way under invested and that's why it collapsed. We were building 1940 engines in 1960. Look at Fiat, Citroen, Volkwagen..by 1960 all building modern engines whilst we laboured on with A and B series engines designed pre war ( or based on prewar designs)
I agree there was bad management too but biggest problem was under investment in tooling and modern technology.
When we built good modern engines ( Eg Dolomite Sprint engine, which won world wide acclaim) we couldn't afford to build a new car to put it in. At the same time,VW were designing the Golf with government money. That's why we didn't compete, even tho we had best engine designers in the world.( Ricardo are responsible for nearly every modern concept but we rarely saw their efforts in British cars)
Had Triumph/ MG/ etc etc had real investment we would still have them.
 
Last edited:

PeterL

Esteemed Pedelecer
Aug 19, 2017
998
172
Dundee
The same would have been said of Clement Attlee's plans, and he certainly wasn't elected on the strength of them. He only won through the public's anger giving the Tories a kicking.
Agreed and you surely accept that after the war the only way was up, it couldn't possibly have gotten any worse.

But Clement and his far left team didn't bankrupt the country, they belatedly turned it into one fit for the 20th century with improvements that no-one today would get rid of.
Germany was perhaps in an even worse position and they've done OK too. It didn't seem that good at the time, as I recall.

Don't underestimate Jeremy. Theresa May did that and it led her to hold a general election confident of greatly increasing her majority. But all she achieved was to lose her majority and make Jeremy widely popular in the country, silencing his critics in the parliamentary party.
Surely, the great British Public couldn't be that daft - if only I could believe that! Old Tom perhaps and a couple, surely not you flecc... surely not.
 

PeterL

Esteemed Pedelecer
Aug 19, 2017
998
172
Dundee
That's why so much Russian money is here.
And flecc , your explanation is simply your opinion. The entire UK car industry was way under invested and that's why it collapsed. We were building 1940 engines in 1960. Look at Fiat, Citroen, Volkwagen..by 1960 all building modern engines whilst we laboured on with A and B series engines designed pre war ( or based on prewar designs)
I agree there was bad management too but biggest problem was under investment in tooling and modern technology.
To all intents and purposes it was a nationalised industry, remind me who is it that's in favour of such? They simply don't work, can't work and never will work. The theory is fine as they are for co-operatives but they always fail, because no one is in charge with 'real' money. Taxation, is not 'real' money and neither is borrowing from someone else. We've already established that Governments don't work, why keep going back to a failed model? Governments are not the answer to the problems.
 
  • Disagree
  • Agree
Reactions: oldtom and Zlatan

Zlatan

Esteemed Pedelecer
Nov 26, 2016
8,086
4,289
Germany was perhaps in an even worse position and they've done OK too. It didn't seem that good at the time, as I recall.

Yes, they were. British Army put Volkwagen Beetle back in production in Germany with UK cash. That seems quite ironic now, considering our own car builders received not a penny..

There is plenty of evidence showing higher taxation slows economy, reduces foreign investment and fails to raise commensurate revenue. The real way to increase revenue is to promote the economy. Corbyn disagrees as do most left wingers. The country will be way more damaged by Corbyn than by Brexit.
 
  • Dislike
  • Agree
Reactions: robdon and PeterL

flecc

Member
Oct 25, 2006
53,047
30,509
And flecc , your explanation is simply your opinion. The entire UK car industry was way under invested and that's why it collapsed. We were building 1940 engines in 1960. Look at Fiat, Citroen, Volkwagen..by 1960 all building modern engines whilst we laboured on with A and B series engines designed pre war ( or based on prewar designs)
The first hand opinion of someone there at the time and in the business.

The rest you post supports what I posted, the management chose to continue with those old designs. There was retooling investment, too often spent to produce old or unsuitable designs. They actually had some better German designs but either didn't use them or failed to continue with improving them.

You only have to look at the chaotic management indecisiveness that afllicted the Hillman Imp, a new design witn new engine planned, but ultimately ruined in so many silly ways.

And using the pre-war A series engine in the new Mini when they already had access to German and American knowhow and government cash that would have enabled a new engine.
.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: robdon

oldgroaner

Esteemed Pedelecer
Nov 15, 2015
23,461
32,613
80
This is an interesting read - not just the Headlines please!

The Germans are making contingency plans for the collapse of Europe. Let’s hope we are, too

View attachment 22063
The German defence ministry set out its worst-case scenario for the year 2040 in a secret document that was leaked to Der Spiegel last week: “EU enlargement has been largely abandoned, and more states have left the community … the increasingly disorderly, sometimes chaotic and conflict-prone, world has dramatically changed the security environment.”

The 120-page-long paper, entitled Strategic Perspective 2040, is a federal government policy document – and the scenarios it imagines are grimly realistic: an east-west conflict in which some EU states join the Russian side or a “multipolar” Europe, where some states adopt the Russian economic and political model in defiance of the Lisbon treaty.

That the document exists at all is a sign of the increased tension in the global system. The German military’s tradition of rigorous logistical planning for every eventuality began with the celebrated German field marshal Moltke in the 1850s and has three times paid off with initial success: in 1871 against France, in 1914 and 1939 against the rest of Europe. In the post-cold war era, as Der Spiegel puts it, allowing German generals to make statements about the future was “too risky”. That changed with Russia’s annexation of Crimea in 2014.

Despite the alarmist headlines it has generated, the leaked document is, if anything, overoptimistic. In three out of the six scenarios, things go so well that Europe resembles the Biedermeier era – 1815-1848 – of domestic bliss and military boredom. Its negative scenarios – which see the US struggling to avoid isolationism and China locked in a cultural war with the west – were written before Donald Trump came to power and before Xi Jinping’s strategy of creating a politicised Chinese infrastructure across Asia.

Brexit Should Be Prevented, German Government Advisers Say
View attachment 22064

The U.K.’s exit from the European Union should be prevented due to the “far-reaching impact” Brexit would have, Germany’s Council of Economic Experts, which advises Chancellor Angela Merkel, said Wednesday.

If Britain does leave the bloc, an agreement is needed that would minimize the damage for both sides, the council said in its annual report. With talks likely to drag on longer than the two years envisaged by EU rules, a one-time extension period should be granted, the experts said.

“Due to the wide-ranging impact of a U.K. exit from the EU, the council continues to urge that it be prevented,” the council said. “The economic cost of Brexit will hit the U.K. significantly harder than the rest of the EU.”

EU President Donald Tusk last month revived the notion Britain could remain a member of the bloc, saying the outcome was entirely in the hands of the British government. Germany and France have indicated the U.K. would be welcomed back if it decided to reverse the Brexit process. In order to do so, Britain would likely have to hold another referendum or elect a government led by a party that campaigned on a promise to stay in the EU.

The European Union will begin talks Wednesday on what the 27 countries want from a Brexit transition deal, seeking a united stance they can present to the U.K. once talks break out of the current deadlock. Both sides are hoping that talks on trade and the transition can move ahead after an EU summit in mid-December.

“There is still a risk of an uncontrolled exit and sudden adjustment reactions by economic agents,” the German government advisers said. “Conversely, the possibility of the U.K. staying in the EU can’t be completely excluded.” The council’s comments on Brexit made up about two pages of the more than 400-page report, which includes a detailed assessment of global economic conditions.

The advisers also urged the European Central Bank to end its bond-buying program earlier than planned and consider raising interest rates. They said that risks to financial market stability have increased even in the absence of deflationary threats in the 19-nation euro area.

“On the one hand there’s a risk of excessive asset prices, especially in the residential real estate and bond sectors, and on the other hand, the interest-rate change risk at banks has increased significantly,” the council said. “The ECB should therefore urgently communicate a comprehensive strategy for the normalization of its monetary policy.”
And the best possible solution for all concerned, but mostly for us would be for us to cancel Brexit.
No matter what deal we drum up it will benefit the EU, but not us in the long term, it will simply give them time to replace our input to their economy, which without doubt they won't hesitate to do.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: robdon

oldgroaner

Esteemed Pedelecer
Nov 15, 2015
23,461
32,613
80
To all intents and purposes it was a nationalised industry, remind me who is it that's in favour of such? They simply don't work, can't work and never will work. The theory is fine as they are for co-operatives but they always fail, because no one is in charge with 'real' money. Taxation, is not 'real' money and neither is borrowing from someone else. We've already established that Governments don't work, why keep going back to a failed model? Governments are not the answer to the problems.
Which means of course you don't want Governments, after all you just said that, so one assumes you prefer Corporations to run the country?
 
  • Agree
Reactions: robdon

oldgroaner

Esteemed Pedelecer
Nov 15, 2015
23,461
32,613
80
Steb / Flecc
If I were picking an uncle for my grand kids , yes Corbyn would be top of list but let me ask you this, and be honest...If you had a business to run and you were taken ill would you chose May or Corbyn
to run it for you in your absence ?

I had a good read of Labour's GE manifesto, policy document before last election. Honestly it's plain barmy. He really will bankrupt country but not sure he,ll actually get chance even if May collapses, door is open for a Blair like mp to step up to mark. Country is waiting for it. ( Had Blair not been the lying turd he is he could have done it )
And Campbell is waiting in wings to support who ever. ( He,s said anyone except Corbyn and Blair tho, but he didn't rule out supporting another party, proving most of them will do anything to get into power)
We should get Haigue, Portilo and both Millibands to form a coalition. I,d vote for those four.
Well it wouldn't be either of them....
 
  • Agree
Reactions: robdon

Zlatan

Esteemed Pedelecer
Nov 26, 2016
8,086
4,289
The first hand opinion of someone there at the time and in the business.

The rest you post supports what I posted, the management chose to continue with those old designs. There was retooling investment, too often spent to produce old or unsuitable designs. They actually had some better German designs but either didn't use them or failed to continue with improving them.

You only have to look at the chaotic management indecisiveness that afllicted the Hillman Imp, a new design witn new engine planned, but ultimately ruined in so many silly ways.

And using the pre-war A series engine in the new Mini when they already had access to German and American knowhow and government cash that would have enabled a new engine.
.
The Imp was a flawed design and the engine not new at all. It was a Coventry Climax water pump engine originally..and shoe horned into car use. Yes a good basic design but a compromise. It wasn't designed to be thrown around in a car and had to be detuned. It was chosen because it was available, which is how our car industry operated. The Rover V8 was bought from Anerica ( originally a marine design)
Fiat / Alfa / VW had the cash to design new ebgines. The Golf was a brand new design , incorporating all modern production techniques. BL never actually did that. ( even. Dolomite sprint mentioned earlier was an adaptation.)
Triumph couldn't afford a new engine with Stag, so stuck 2 dolomite engines together...so prettiest car in world over heated every 200 miles..Its how the operated from 1945 to closure..on a shoe string.
 

flecc

Member
Oct 25, 2006
53,047
30,509
When we built good modern engines ( Eg Dolomite Sprint engine, which won world wide acclaim) we couldn't afford to build a new car to put it in.
That's simply not true again, BL management had enough money but persisted on wasting it with design, make and model duplications. All they needed was the ability to know what was good for production and marketing and what wasn't, but they always lacked that.

As for engines, with imagination they could have used other's modern engines. For example Simca used Fiat's excellent new 1000cc engine in their Mille model and that would have been the ideal unit for the Mini, but BL management were too incompetent to realise it.

Today more enlightened managements share engines internationally, even with rivals.
.
 
Last edited:
  • Agree
Reactions: robdon

PeterL

Esteemed Pedelecer
Aug 19, 2017
998
172
Dundee
Which means of course you don't want Governments, after all you just said that, so one assumes you prefer Corporations to run the country?
I don't want, nor do I expect Governments to run the country. They are not so equipped. They are simply required to provide an infrastructure that allows business to prosper and take just enough taxation to look after those that need to be looked after. If only it were that simple.
 

PeterL

Esteemed Pedelecer
Aug 19, 2017
998
172
Dundee
That's simply not true again, BL management had enough money but persisted on wasting it with design, make and model duplications. All they needed was the ability to know what was good for production and marketing and what wasn't, but they always lacked that.

As for engines, with imagination they could have used other's modern engines. For example Simca used Fiat's excellent new 1000cc engine in their Mille model and that would have been the ideal unit for the Mini, but BL management were too incompetent to realise it.

Today more enlightened managemnts share engines internationally, even with rivals.
.
Do you really think that the Unions would have allowed them (BL) to outsource engines?
 

flecc

Member
Oct 25, 2006
53,047
30,509
The Imp was a flawed design and the engine not new at all. It was a Coventry Climax water pump engine originally..and shoe horned into car use. Yes a good basic design but a compromise. It wasn't designed to be thrown around in a car and had to be detuned. It was chosen because it was available, which is how our car industry operated. The Rover V8 was bought from Anerica ( originally a marine design)
Please Zlatan, don't try to teach granny to suck eggs especially when you don't know the facts.

The engine designed for the Imp was entirely new, a twin cylinder unit in a less well equipped car intended to outcompete the Citroen 2cv and Fiat 500. But the useless Rootes group management got cold feet when they learnt of the Mini plans and foolishly decided on chasing the Mini market instead by hastily at the last minute looking for a four cylinder engine to do that. Hence the alloy Coventry Climax unit, just about light enough. Rather than detuning it was enlarged from 750cc to 850cc to match the Mini's A series engine, and was later tuned more highly for racing. Their handling problem solution had a different approach from detuning, very low front tyre pressures, basically around 15 lbs front, 30 lbs rear, maintaining front tyre contact with the road.

The Rover V8 was bought from Anerica ( originally a marine design)
More nonsense. That alloy engine was designed by General Motors for cars at a time when they were trying to have achieve lighter engines, but at the same time they were experimenting with thinwall cast iron casting techniques. Ultimately that produced light enough engines that were easier and less costly to produce so the alloy unit was taken out of production after only being in a few models, first with Chevrolet, last with Pontiac.

At that time BL engineers were using GM's computer design facilities for camshaft profiles and while there spotted the alloy engine on the shelf. That lead to it's adoption for the Rovers when they learnt it was redundant.
.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: robdon

Zlatan

Esteemed Pedelecer
Nov 26, 2016
8,086
4,289
That's simply not true again, BL management had enough money but persisted on wasting it with design, make and model duplications. All they needed was the ability to know what was good for production and marketing and what wasn't, but they always lacked that.

As for engines, with imagination they could have used other's modern engines. For example Simca used Fiat's excellent new 1000cc engine in their Mille model and that would have been the ideal unit for the Mini, but BL management were too incompetent to realise it.

Today more enlightened managemnts share engines internationally, even with rivals.
.
In the1960's Fiat designed the Fiat Twin Cam..in effect that same engine can be found under bonnets of fiats upto 1990,s and gave basic design ( same structure/ valve design) in Lancia Integrale. There simply were no new engines built/ designed in UK untill Honda amalgamation. That was purely to so with finances and lack of investment. Nobody was sharing engine designs at time. ( Except amalgamated companies)
Blaming management is completely missing point. The car industry needed heavy investment ( as Fiat/ VW/ PSA received) good trade relations and good management. Saying the entire UK car industry went bust because of .management is actually quite daft. You are suggesting Morris,Triumph, Austin, MG,Jjaguar,Rolls Royce etc etc etc etc including all the ones long gone like Talbot and Lanchester and Bristol were all poorly managed. The Fact is they were eventually competing against companies receiving government help and national support. ( for a long tine French only bought Ftench cars)
The UK car undustry always worked against an unreceptive and indoctrinated population and lack of investment. Nationalisation made it worse, government saying yes we,ll invest but want profits ...( and only invest lightly)
What happened to UK car industry post war was a complete travesty. Blaming management and or trade unions is completely missing what was happening here when compared with USA/ Europe. ( My first job was under Edwards at BL,..when I try was obvious our car industry was dead in the water. There was literally no cash for anything. The poor old Marina was competing with Golfs, Fiat 124's. and the likes. It had no chance. The engine was only one on books ( A series) The B series was actually worse..It was flogging a dead horse. Buying an outside engine in those days was not an option. They couldn't afford a new coffee machine, let alone design a new engine.
 

oldgroaner

Esteemed Pedelecer
Nov 15, 2015
23,461
32,613
80
I don't want, nor do I expect Governments to run the country. They are not so equipped. They are simply required to provide an infrastructure that allows business to prosper and take just enough taxation to look after those that need to be looked after. If only it were that simple.
Well now you must be well and truly unhappy with the present Government that has never shown any aptitude for running the country, it's talent lies in
Spying on People, persecuting the poor, waging wars on orders from the USA, Ballsing up the economy ,ensuring the rich avoid taxes, and as for infrastructure they prefer any of that sort of thing to be done by Foreigners.
Which is why our railways should be renamed Deutsch Bahnhof, and of course the Car industry isn't ours either, oh and Electric Supply is owned by who??
What is wrong with you conservatives? are you living in an alternative reality?
 
  • Agree
Reactions: robdon

Zlatan

Esteemed Pedelecer
Nov 26, 2016
8,086
4,289
Flecc
Buick originally designed the Rover V8 but sold the rights to Mercury Marine.
The first sighting of the V8 by Rover Engineers was at Mercury Marine.
"Rover cars. History relates that McWilliams first saw the Buick V8 at the works of Mercury Marine, where he was discussing the sale of Rover gas turbines and diesel engines to the company (Mercury did indeed use the Land Rover 2.25-litre diesel engine in marinised form). "

Wether the engine was a Buick, a GM or a Mercury Marine is actually irrelevant. The fact is what became the mainstay engine for Rover ( and a few others) almost up to the present day was an engine designed in 1951 and by 1960 virtually unused in USA. Rover did that rather than designing a new engine purely on cost saving.

For quite a few years I raced a Scorpion K 19 with a 1000cc imp engine. In car use it needed plenty of oil baffling, which it sadly lacked in Imp. It overheated and the gearbox was appalling. It was the last car available under £1000. It was more than a flawed design and even with a better engine would not have competed with a mini. In effect the best thing about it was the engine. It always understeered ( hence your 15 psi in fronts) and was by no means well designed. It was obviously designed down to a price with lots of problems ( including overheating,excessive oil use,poor gear linkage,and very poor handling)
It typified uk car industry of time. Under funded beginning to end. Drive a Fiat 128 from same era. Simply no comparison and then ask yourself why ?
You cant make an omelette without breaking eggs. UK car industry was trying to make one without eggs. They could not afford them.
 
Last edited:

Advertisers