UK car plant at risk of closure LDV?

#61
No I get it Argee, and it's not a bad idea at all. I don't know if the Government are clever enough to see it and set themselves up as preferential bidders..... can we discuss your VAT Bill LDV?

But an all in one company, centred on a small geographical footprint to make it easier , and if the whole shooting match could be run by a proven Civil Servant with proven managers , it might just work very nicely indeed.
 
#62
The new LDVs (maxus?) seemed pretty decent - handled well and pulled well.

The older ones, by which I mean an 03 reg being used in 05... rusting, pulling to one side under braking, leaking, steering shot, awful engines. Those were white fleet.

LDV have finally made a decent enough product, but it is/was almost too late. LDV under government control doesn't have to be a bad thing - cheaper deals for all government departments and ldv sales go up because departments are "encouraged" to buy them. (I'm sounding very socialist...). If vans prove to be less than reliable then managers will be shot every hour, on the hour, until quality improves.
 
#63
I listened to one of the management this morning on R4 pleading his case, I wasn't convinced.

There seems to be endless requests from industry for bail out money from the government which has to come from somewhere. There appears to be a view that this is free money, because its government money, its not, its tasx people pay.

Harsh as it sounds, if a company is not providing value for money in the marketplace then it should cut costs, meaning wages, or go to the wall.

Peoples week in Malaga each year is not a right as some seem to think. Compete or collapse.
 
#64
We had Government run motor manufacturers in the 70's and it didnt prove to be the best moments in our motoring history. British Leyland was an unmitigated disaster building the same models and bodyshells across the company's brand lines. Remember the cheese wedge that was a rover. a wolseley and an Austin all using the same bodyshell and engine.

Civil Servants are just that, they arent engineers and managers of production plants. And for an example of how a recent disaster occured just look at the MG Group before it was sold to SIAC. An appointed team (recommended by Alistair Darling) who screwed the factory for all it was worth.

If Leyland Daf are in financial difficulties let their owners stump up to save it or sell it, but please dont bring it into government ownership again, it didnt work last time, and it will not work now. Changing the ownership of the Brand will not sell any more vehicles, that is the issue here, not who owns and runs the factory.
 
#65
bobthedog said:
We had Government run motor manufacturers in the 70's and it didnt prove to be the best moments in our motoring history. British Leyland was an unmitigated disaster building the same models and bodyshells across the company's brand lines. Remember the cheese wedge that was a rover. a wolseley and an Austin all using the same bodyshell and engine.

Civil Servants are just that, they arent engineers and managers of production plants. And for an example of how a recent disaster occured just look at the MG Group before it was sold to SIAC. An appointed team (recommended by Alistair Darling) who screwed the factory for all it was worth.

If Leyland Daf are in financial difficulties let their owners stump up to save it or sell it, but please dont bring it into government ownership again, it didnt work last time, and it will not work now. Changing the ownership of the Brand will not sell any more vehicles, that is the issue here, not who owns and runs the factory.


I was more thinking about taking the best parts of the companies, putting them together and the government helping them out at the beginning in return for actual vehicles for our white fleets, government cars, etc.

I chose those three companies but it could be any of the ones in trouble, i'm not on about keeping the same products only, but actually creating new cars as well, the mini would stay, landrover would continue with their best lines but they'd also come up with some new vehicles for the market and of course for the likes of the government vehicles. It's a huge task if it were ever to happen, but you've got to keep the engineers, designers, skilled workforce and so on, this would keep them ticking over and allow them to branch out with new vehicles under one umbrella, not driven by profit, not driven by shareholders but driven by actually building a company that can grow and can also be something that will last.
 
#66
Argee2007 said:
The big problem just now is that there is too much competition, the same as with the banks, the government really needed to reduce the amount, at least with Lloyds and HBOS joining it reduced the marketplace a bit, but more need to go.

It's the exact same with the car industry, the government really could do something good here, Landrover are in trouble, Mini are in trouble and LDV are in trouble, if all three go to the wall the government could get in there, take the best bits and amalgamate them into one company, then with the government contract to produce all their vehicles it would have the work to start with along with their external orders. I can't really describe the idea in one paragraph so hopefully people get the idea.
Ah, like Lazarus, British Leyland rises again.

It made all the brands you mention and was truly an unfortunately unique motor manufacturer of the ‘60s and ‘70s.

It was a by-word for incompetence, shoddy products, appalling industrial relations and crap profitability, and it was owned and operated by the government.

If that is what you wish for, please be very afraid.
 
#67
It's all null and void, there will be no government bail out. BBC story.

People have got so used to the good life they have forgotten there is competition out there. Good fcuking morning people, the world does not owe you a living, deal with it.
 
#68
The trouble with cherry picking the best and developing the new product lines is that to design new cars from scratch costs billions. The MGF range alone cost upwards of £1Bn to design tool and produce. It has been a successful model, but many variants of the same model/bodyshell have ensured that it hasnt really been updated for years. Its still a popular model but has been around for over 15 years now.

The time from concept to market can be measured in years not months, and it is a highly competitive market. It would be good money after bad in my view.
 
#69
bobthedog said:
The trouble with cherry picking the best and developing the new product lines is that to design new cars from scratch costs billions. The MGF range alone cost upwards of £1Bn to design tool and produce. It has been a successful model, but many variants of the same model/bodyshell have ensured that it hasnt really been updated for years. Its still a popular model but has been around for over 15 years now.

The time from concept to market can be measured in years not months, and it is a highly competitive market. It would be good money after bad in my view.

Yeah, but if it's successful it guarantees the company for years to come, it also puts them ahead of the competitors, it might not sound great to start with, but what's the point in shoring up a company just now when two years down the line the same thing happens again?

As for the 60s and 70s, a lot has happened since then, unions aren't the same, the companies work to their strengths and a lot of practices have been brought in to make the companies better, we have a lot of very skilled workers in the car industry and they do a hell of a job, to lose that now would mean an end to the UK producing cars for a generation.
 
#70
Argee2007 said:
Yeah, but if it's successful it guarantees the company for years to come, it also puts them ahead of the competitors, it might not sound great to start with, but what's the point in shoring up a company just now when two years down the line the same thing happens again?
But isn't that EXACTLY what you are proposing?
 
#71
Argee2007 said:
As for the 60s and 70s, a lot has happened since then, unions aren't the same, the companies work to their strengths and a lot of practices have been brought in to make the companies better, we have a lot of very skilled workers in the car industry and they do a hell of a job, to lose that now would mean an end to the UK producing cars for a generation.
You see thats where the confusion seeps in, screwing an odometer into a van is not skilled work, its monkey see monkey do, which is part of the problem.

Yagnesh in Mumbai will do it for 50 quid a month but Sid Smith wants 30k a year for it, and god damit he will have his job doing it forever. The problem is its not true, and good morning. :roll:
 
#72
Ord_Sgt said:
It's all null and void, there will be no government bail out. BBC story.

People have got so used to the good life they have forgotten there is competition out there. Good fcuking morning people, the world does not owe you a living, deal with it.
The worls owes nobody a living, you are quite right.
How come we have all shelled out billions to preserve tha bankers lifestyles then?
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
#73
crabby said:
The new LDVs (maxus?) seemed pretty decent - handled well and pulled well.

The older ones, by which I mean an 03 reg being used in 05... rusting, pulling to one side under braking, leaking, steering shot, awful engines. Those were white fleet.

LDV have finally made a decent enough product, but it is/was almost too late. LDV under government control doesn't have to be a bad thing - cheaper deals for all government departments and ldv sales go up because departments are "encouraged" to buy them. (I'm sounding very socialist...). If vans prove to be less than reliable then managers will be shot every hour, on the hour, until quality improves.
I drove those in the 80's Daft Leyland as we knew them utter shoite. Let them fail, otherwise its money down the pan, ours! Any good and they will be bought out! If they were worth buying then by now they would have been rescued. There also isnt a massive Govt client for vans anymore, the family jewells were sold in the 90's.
Survival of the fittest, the govt wont help the small business so why are they wasting our money on banks and car firms that cant sell cars or even lend the money that the govt tells them to?
 
#74
whitecity said:
Argee2007 said:
Yeah, but if it's successful it guarantees the company for years to come, it also puts them ahead of the competitors, it might not sound great to start with, but what's the point in shoring up a company just now when two years down the line the same thing happens again?
But isn't that EXACTLY what you are proposing?

No, i was proposing putting money in and allowing them to create for the future, not to shore it up for the next couple of years then bugger off, it's a case of allowing them to create new designs, production lines, etc and allow them the time to do this, the car industry is faltering all over the world, any company that has the ability to survive the next couple of years and bring in new innovations and designs may well lead the way for the next decade.
 
#75
jagman said:
Ord_Sgt said:
It's all null and void, there will be no government bail out. BBC story.

People have got so used to the good life they have forgotten there is competition out there. Good fcuking morning people, the world does not owe you a living, deal with it.
The worls owes nobody a living, you are quite right.
How come we have all shelled out billions to preserve tha bankers lifestyles then?
I'm not defending the bankers largesse by any stretch of the imgination. But you must realise the amount of YOUR money is limited to bail out all and sundry.
 
#76
The problem with Nationalisation, for that is what it would be, is that it is usually a politically driven "rescue". Labour (for it isnt the Tories that do too much in the way of Nationalisation) end up with the baggage of the unions having a large say in how the new enterprise will be run, that is what went wrong in the '70s. Its not a question of the innovation - Britain has always been at the forefront of that. There are other manufacturers in the country and indeed the world, whether we can compete against the likes of Volkswagen with their manufacturing plants in Spain and the Czech Republic where wages are somewhat lower than UK is an entirely different thing.

While it is one thing to have the cost of R&D into new models and product ranges, ultimately the model has to be priced competitively to be able to sell on a world market, the cost of R&D and all other associated production costs has to be included in the cost of the new models. Motor Manufacturers are already tightening their belts considerably, Honda no longer supporting Formula 1 for example. This recession (depression) is likely to last for at least another year, if not much longer. The amount of overproduction laying around in fields around UK is going to take some time to sell, before they need to start the factories again. Its not cos the cars are unpopular, its the lack of confidence in people about having jobs, and the lack of credit in the market place that is hampering the sales of cars.

The car manufacturer that can hunker down and ride this economic tempest, and come out the other end of it able to provide popular models at reasonable cost is the one that will succeed. If LDV have financial difficulties at this stage, I see little future for it in the longer term.
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
#77
Please remember that the lying thiefs that give away money to shore up these companies is taken from you and I first. Thats why so many small business' fail, taxed to feckin death by lying thiefs who line their pockets on expenses and give our money to banks who double their bank charges monthly!
 
#78
Ord_Sgt said:
jagman said:
Ord_Sgt said:
It's all null and void, there will be no government bail out. BBC story.

People have got so used to the good life they have forgotten there is competition out there. Good fcuking morning people, the world does not owe you a living, deal with it.
The worls owes nobody a living, you are quite right.
How come we have all shelled out billions to preserve tha bankers lifestyles then?
I'm not defending the bankers largesse by any stretch of the imgination. But you must realise the amount of YOUR money is limited to bail out all and sundry.
Oh I am well aware of how little money us mere mortals have to spare for the poor bankers :D
What I am saying is that the vast amounts of money thrown at the banks have not been well spent and represent poor value for money in comparison to what the cash could have been used for. If we must v=bail out badly managed business for the sake of the nation then the banks are still a bad investment of taxpayers money
 

maguire

LE
Book Reviewer
#79
you've got to hand it to Cyclops though - he does a nice line in irony - "The British taxpayer cannot be expected to pay for the company's losses," said a spokesman for Gordon Brown.

why not? we paid (and will be paying, long after you've been packed off to a home for the terminally deluded) for all your mates in the City. but then, directorships at LDV probably arent worth as much as a seat on a bank's board are they? you one eyed fat unelected incontinent lying scottish cnut.
 
#80
jagman said:
Ord_Sgt said:
jagman said:
Ord_Sgt said:
It's all null and void, there will be no government bail out. BBC story.

People have got so used to the good life they have forgotten there is competition out there. Good fcuking morning people, the world does not owe you a living, deal with it.
The worls owes nobody a living, you are quite right.
How come we have all shelled out billions to preserve tha bankers lifestyles then?
I'm not defending the bankers largesse by any stretch of the imgination. But you must realise the amount of YOUR money is limited to bail out all and sundry.
Oh I am well aware of how little money us mere mortals have to spare for the poor bankers :D
What I am saying is that the vast amounts of money thrown at the banks have not been well spent and represent poor value for money in comparison to what the cash could have been used for. If we must v=bail out badly managed business for the sake of the nation then the banks are still a bad investment of taxpayers money
Amen, I don't disagree with a word you've said there. :)
 

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top