4 ms·

(Link from the Adam Smith Institute, a neoliberal thinktank)

linksnapzz 2y ago
The story of British Leyland is enough to scare anyone w/ even half a brain away from ever allowing British politicians to have even the least bit of influence over a company that competes anywhere near the consumer space.
- teamonkey 2y ago
  You mean how it was successfully and profitably-run for over a decade part-nationalised, following its near-collapse as a private company? Or how in the Thatcher era, the government began to privatise and divest the most valuable parts of the company (and arguably a huge amount of British soft power) for little return to the taxpayer? Notably it sold Mini to BMW, Leyland to DAF, Jaguar and Land Rover to Ford. Privately-run Ford nearly went bust in the 2000s and famously had to be bailed out by the US taxpayer, but they sold off Jaguar and Land Rover to Tata in the process.
  - linksnapzz 2y ago
    successfully and profitably-run for over a decade part-nationalised, "successful" and "profitably run", taking into consideration the recommendation to Tony Benn that the Wilson gov't provide 1.2 billion pound investment; plus the buyout of existing BL shareholders at 1/5 the value of their shares, plus the pre-existing tariff regime, without even touching the product and manufacturing issues that had dogged them since the Austin-Morris days. Pigs can fly, if given enough thrust...Labor didn't fix BL, it just kept the shambolic structure upright, albeit canted at a weird angle. Jaguar was privatized in '84 (and nobody at BL was going to pony up money for new models) and only in '90 did Ford purchase it, for as it turned out, way too much. "Nothing wrong with this that a bulldozer couldn't fix" said a Ford exec after first touring the Jaguar plant on Brown's Lane in Coventry. Neither BMW nor Ford were ever able to make Land Rover work as a reliably profitable company. Also, Ford was never bailed out in 2008. Alan Mullaly hocked almost all of the company to get liquidity before the crash, which was prescient. After that, the entirety of the former Ford "Premier Automotive Group" (save for Lincoln) was jettisoned, as it was in the long term a money-loser. Jaguar and Land Rover to Tata, Volvo to Geely, and Aston-Martin to ...some Saudis.
    - teamonkey 2y ago
      I mean, sure, it failed eventually, obviously. But it was part-nationalised in 1974 following a private-sector failure. It was a big manufacturer, letting it collapse would have led to thousands of jobs lost, but the government went for a 1.2bn buyout instead of simply a cash injection. It was not badly run in the ‘70s. It had its ups and downs, but ultimately it was very stable. It really started to collapse in the ‘80s. Lots of reasons for this, including a changing market, recession and poor management decisions. Toyota’s lean production processes became a thing and BL failed to evolve, such is the way of business. It was most certainly a mess by the late ‘80s. Remember, it was part-nationalised: essentially run as a private corporation that the government had a major stake in, not directly run by the government, though of course the govt could not help but meddle and the Thatcher govt was ideologically opposed to such a structure existing.
      - linksnapzz 2y ago
        >following a private-sector failure. It was a big manufacturer, letting it collapse would have led to thousands of jobs lost, Those jobs are just as lost now, as they would've been 50 years ago. Wouldn't it have been better to fix that problem earlier? >It was not badly run in the ‘70s. I'm sorry, I can't credit that. BL was less efficient in 1973 in terms of cars per worker than Renault, Fiat & VW. Per sales, it was even worse, as Fiat wasn't selling Alfa Romeos, Maseratis and Ferraris at the time. To say nothing of Ford, or Toyota. >It had its ups and downs, but ultimately it was very stable. A tossed brick descends from its apogee at a steady 9.8m/s^2; and yet we don't call that flying. >Remember, it was part-nationalised...the govt could not help but meddle and the >Thatcher govt was ideologically opposed to such a structure existing. So, as best as I can figure, that £1.2 billion was recouped by: 1.) Privatization of Jaguar in '84: £400 million 2.) Sale of Rover group to British Aerospace in '87: £150 million 3.) Merger of Leyland Trucks w/ DAF in '88: unknown, the merged Leyland DAF went bankrupt four or five years later. So, by '88, the Government was still out £400 million or so on its investment; how much longer do you think they should've kept it up? Also-I'd love to know which Anglophone government has a record of success with: 1.) A fully nationalized company 2.) That is highly capital intensive 3.) In the consumer-product or durable-goods space Does one exist?

The story of British Leyland is enough to scare anyone w/ even half a brain away from ever allowing British politicians to have even the least bit of influence over a company that competes anywhere near the consumer space.

teamonkey 2y ago
You mean how it was successfully and profitably-run for over a decade part-nationalised, following its near-collapse as a private company? Or how in the Thatcher era, the government began to privatise and divest the most valuable parts of the company (and arguably a huge amount of British soft power) for little return to the taxpayer? Notably it sold Mini to BMW, Leyland to DAF, Jaguar and Land Rover to Ford. Privately-run Ford nearly went bust in the 2000s and famously had to be bailed out by the US taxpayer, but they sold off Jaguar and Land Rover to Tata in the process.
- linksnapzz 2y ago
  successfully and profitably-run for over a decade part-nationalised, "successful" and "profitably run", taking into consideration the recommendation to Tony Benn that the Wilson gov't provide 1.2 billion pound investment; plus the buyout of existing BL shareholders at 1/5 the value of their shares, plus the pre-existing tariff regime, without even touching the product and manufacturing issues that had dogged them since the Austin-Morris days. Pigs can fly, if given enough thrust...Labor didn't fix BL, it just kept the shambolic structure upright, albeit canted at a weird angle. Jaguar was privatized in '84 (and nobody at BL was going to pony up money for new models) and only in '90 did Ford purchase it, for as it turned out, way too much. "Nothing wrong with this that a bulldozer couldn't fix" said a Ford exec after first touring the Jaguar plant on Brown's Lane in Coventry. Neither BMW nor Ford were ever able to make Land Rover work as a reliably profitable company. Also, Ford was never bailed out in 2008. Alan Mullaly hocked almost all of the company to get liquidity before the crash, which was prescient. After that, the entirety of the former Ford "Premier Automotive Group" (save for Lincoln) was jettisoned, as it was in the long term a money-loser. Jaguar and Land Rover to Tata, Volvo to Geely, and Aston-Martin to ...some Saudis.
  - teamonkey 2y ago
    I mean, sure, it failed eventually, obviously. But it was part-nationalised in 1974 following a private-sector failure. It was a big manufacturer, letting it collapse would have led to thousands of jobs lost, but the government went for a 1.2bn buyout instead of simply a cash injection. It was not badly run in the ‘70s. It had its ups and downs, but ultimately it was very stable. It really started to collapse in the ‘80s. Lots of reasons for this, including a changing market, recession and poor management decisions. Toyota’s lean production processes became a thing and BL failed to evolve, such is the way of business. It was most certainly a mess by the late ‘80s. Remember, it was part-nationalised: essentially run as a private corporation that the government had a major stake in, not directly run by the government, though of course the govt could not help but meddle and the Thatcher govt was ideologically opposed to such a structure existing.
    - linksnapzz 2y ago
      >following a private-sector failure. It was a big manufacturer, letting it collapse would have led to thousands of jobs lost, Those jobs are just as lost now, as they would've been 50 years ago. Wouldn't it have been better to fix that problem earlier? >It was not badly run in the ‘70s. I'm sorry, I can't credit that. BL was less efficient in 1973 in terms of cars per worker than Renault, Fiat & VW. Per sales, it was even worse, as Fiat wasn't selling Alfa Romeos, Maseratis and Ferraris at the time. To say nothing of Ford, or Toyota. >It had its ups and downs, but ultimately it was very stable. A tossed brick descends from its apogee at a steady 9.8m/s^2; and yet we don't call that flying. >Remember, it was part-nationalised...the govt could not help but meddle and the >Thatcher govt was ideologically opposed to such a structure existing. So, as best as I can figure, that £1.2 billion was recouped by: 1.) Privatization of Jaguar in '84: £400 million 2.) Sale of Rover group to British Aerospace in '87: £150 million 3.) Merger of Leyland Trucks w/ DAF in '88: unknown, the merged Leyland DAF went bankrupt four or five years later. So, by '88, the Government was still out £400 million or so on its investment; how much longer do you think they should've kept it up? Also-I'd love to know which Anglophone government has a record of success with: 1.) A fully nationalized company 2.) That is highly capital intensive 3.) In the consumer-product or durable-goods space Does one exist?