MG-Rover.org Forums banner
1 - 12 of 12 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
23 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Whilst information drips in - very slowly. And we all try to grasp at straws, ever hoping that someone steams in like a white knight to save the day. I have been getting more and more worked up at the negative attitudes people have towards MG Rovers plight and how close they are to getting Nexus (RX60) up and running, never mund the possibilities for MG TFGT or even R75 Coupe.

However, one area, that is really getting my goat, is the fact that we (the british) always seem to play fair as far as the EU is concerned, whereas the French can support their own car Industry through Government Owevership and cheap finance through Government owned banks, and the fact that it is common practice for Governments to support their own Industries by purchasing home grown products, apart from of course the British Government.

This is not a political moan, as it doesn't matter who is in Govt in the UK, purchasing practices seem to be the same.

Britain needs icons and not franchises. Our problem is we rely too much on foreign car companies to invest here, rather than focus on keeping some of the crown jewels at home.

Just look at the Rail Industry. For many years Washwood Heath in Birmingham built trains (very successfully) for Alstom (French Company). As it is French, when the market contracts what gets dropped first, those plants outside France!!

Whilst I do not doubt that there has been waste over the years at Longbridge, the fact of the matter is that people want MG's now, just look at the sales figures for the ZR, TF (even now) and the ZT. People who own either Rover's or MG's love them, look at the surveys, much higher than so called premium badges.

So why can't the Government for once say no, and not accept what the EU has to say about state aid. Take a look at the potential for MG Rover, even if that is for only MG to survive. Put it's (our) money where it's mouth is and invest in the future of British Industry, Design and maintain a british Icon.

If we were in Italy, and the company was called FIAT or even Alfa Romeo (i know it's the same company), things maybe a little different.

Come on. MG & ROVER - Lets give it a future - In Britain!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
577 Posts
My feelings exactly.

I find myself becoming more and more frustrated with being in a country where everything has to be done properly, and by the book, whilst Johnny Foreigner simply walks all over us, ignoring those rules which do not suit him.

This, I presume, is why I can purchase a Renault, in which the French government has a minority interest, and why my electricity bills come from a French state owned company, but why I cannot at present purchase a British car / computer / train / helicopter / anything else.

I can still remember reading in textbooks at school how Britain was the 'workshop of the world'. Isambard Kingdom Brunel and Joseph Bazalgette would not recognise the country we inhabit today...

BrianR.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
42 Posts
BrianR said:
My feelings exactly.

I can still remember reading in textbooks at school how Britain was the 'workshop of the world'. Isambard Kingdom Brunel and Joseph Bazalgette would not recognise the country we inhabit today...

BrianR.
Indeed, and I remember last year (or year before) Jeremy Clarkson making the case for Brunel as the 'Greatest Briton of all time'' on that BBC programme as he claimed that engineering and manufacturing greatness was what had made Britain what it is, more so than great writers/literature or great politicians. And if I remember rightly, Brunel won the vote ahead of Churchill, Shakespeare et al. And yet it is that tosspot Clarkson who probably more than any other individual has done more damage to MGRs reputation with his constant derogatory and sarcastic snipes against the company on the BBC and in the press. Clarkson should win the award for the biggest tax subsidised tosspot Briton of all time.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,734 Posts
I pretty much agree with you all on this.

Although there is an argument to state that the more "Western" a country gets, the more it alters it's economic base away from primary and secondary (mining etc. and manufacturing) and towards tertiary and high-tech industry to reflect the changing demographic, ability and wants of the populous.

But in my eyes, there's always room for Rover :)
 

·
Registered
rover_75
Joined
·
2,596 Posts
bazza001 said:
Indeed, and I remember last year (or year before) Jeremy Clarkson making the case for Brunel as the 'Greatest Briton of all time'' on that BBC programme as he claimed that engineering and manufacturing greatness was what had made Britain what it is, more so than great writers/literature or great politicians. And if I remember rightly, Brunel won the vote ahead of Churchill, Shakespeare et al. And yet it is that tosspot Clarkson who probably more than any other individual has done more damage to MGRs reputation with his constant derogatory and sarcastic snipes against the company on the BBC and in the press. Clarkson should win the award for the biggest tax subsidised tosspot Briton of all time.
Never mind - The knives are out for JC and not just by us, see....
http://www.transport2000.org.uk/news/maintainNewsArticles.asp?NewsArticleID=239
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
881 Posts
The public watch Clarkson, they listen to him and believe what he says, even if they know he's exaggerating. If he had told us that Rover was a great car, best of British and all that, then sales would have gone up, I'm sure of it.

He eulogised Brunel (who isn't around to benefit from his hagiography) but repeatedly condemned what genuine remainder of British engineering heritage there was, and in doing so prevented it (i.e. MGR) ever reaching a position where it could be a dynamic force for the future of technology rather than just a museum piece.

As a Brunel University graduate I'm more than biased, but there came a moment during that whole 'Greatest Britons' thing when the BRUNEL name would have been a great brand for a UK engineering company or new product venture. Still could be, in fact.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
588 Posts
Steve said:
I pretty much agree with you all on this.

Although there is an argument to state that the more "Western" a country gets, the more it alters it's economic base away from primary and secondary (mining etc. and manufacturing) and towards tertiary and high-tech industry to reflect the changing demographic, ability and wants of the populous.

But in my eyes, there's always room for Rover :)
In my eyes (student of economics) you can't say such a thing. And when you loose a primary or secondary industry, you loose a lot of expertise and even so you loose a lot more. How many restaurants/shopping malls do you need to employ 6000 people? Fact is that when you loose these jobs, you loose them forever!

There might be some "tricks" politicans use to tune their statistics, but in reality such a thing affects the whole market.

Also it is a bad sign for other industries that are dependent/ part dependent on MG Rover.

I know what outrage came over Germany when there were rumors that GM could close the Opel factories in Rüsselsheim or Bochum.

Especially in Bochum - which has had enormous problems when the mining industry was in decline and still has them - it would have been like a death scentence to a lot of families that have been loyal for generations with Opel. It is not even a employer for these people, it is like a uncle to them. Their fathers worked for Opel and now the sons work for them. They don't even identify with Opel, they are Opel.

I guess it is the same here with Rover and it's laborers! When such a company goes bust, a part of them goes bust too.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,734 Posts
Diewaldo said:
In my eyes (student of economics) you can't say such a thing. And when you loose a primary or secondary industry, you loose a lot of expertise and even so you loose a lot more. How many restaurants/shopping malls do you need to employ 6000 people? Fact is that when you loose these jobs, you loose them forever!

I also studied Economics, and I'm certainly not denying the point you make, but there is a degree of truth in what I was saying. The UK used to be right up there with a lot of primary industry, but gradually that has all dwindled. Primary industry and older secondary industry is, by it's very nature, labour-intensive.

These days, when technology and robotics can do the work of many men, older-generation manufacturing plants will be highlighted as high-cost and low-efficiency. Take that damn plant up in Sunderland which keeps getting rubbed in MGR's nose in the news these days. (credit to them, it's a great factory)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
881 Posts
...and true to form wasn't that vote rigged by loads of students voting for Brunel all day from the university ?
Yes! :lol: But Churchill won, Brunel only came second.

Self-fulfilling prophecy though (just as it's worked in reverse with MGR). The amount of publicity around it had a lot of impact.

The fact that people now a few years later 'remember' Brunel winning is, unfortunately, not very different to the amount of people who 'know' that MGR products are 'unreliable.'
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
588 Posts
Steve said:
These days, when technology and robotics can do the work of many men, older-generation manufacturing plants will be highlighted as high-cost and low-efficiency. Take that damn plant up in Sunderland which keeps getting rubbed in MGR's nose in the news these days. (credit to them, it's a great factory)
Yes, you are right on this! But these examples show that is possible to ceep the industry in the country. It is not all about labour costs (a lot of people forget about that)!

I know that a Chinese worker works for a lot less money than a British oder German worker. But is the Chinese worker as skilled as the British/German worker?

And if we talk about China ... I guess you now about the problems with copyrights/patents in this country. I know people from VW talking about their efforts that the Chinese are not able to steal their cars from them. On all "critical" points they put German engineers. But the problems that GM has with the Daewoo derivates that China is building without licence shows that there is a danger for every manufacturer in China.

I think that they will built the Rovers in China anyway ... like they have done with that Daewoo. And I think that there is no way to stop them from doing that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,361 Posts
Steve said:
Primary industry and older secondary industry is, by it's very nature, labour-intensive.

These days, when technology and robotics can do the work of many men, older-generation manufacturing plants will be highlighted as high-cost and low-efficiency. Take that damn plant up in Sunderland which keeps getting rubbed in MGR's nose in the news these days. (credit to them, it's a great factory)
Surely the problem is manufacturing disappearing, not being replaced by more efficient manufacturing, compounded by foreign ownership of companies?

This means high-earning activities such as secondary industry disappear from this country, and revenue is reduced.

When manufacturing continues under foreign ownership, profits go abroad. Loss making car-makers like Ford might have to put money in rather than take money out when it comes to a loss-maker like jaguar, but if/when Land Rover is profitable, those profits go to Detroit/US treasury/the (predominately-foreign) Ford shareholders. If the company is profitable (i.e. the Jap firms, BMW), and their operations are profitable (which applies to the japs and BMW AFAIK), a lot of profit and revinue goes out of the country.

Even the service sector itself is vulnerable. Plenty of examples of services being run from abroad, or being owned by foreign companies, as cited above (rail, utility, financial companies etc). There is even the threat of the City being taken over by the Frankfurt Stock Exchange.

I may be wrong on this, but I suspect balance of trade figures and trade surpluses/deficits are included in economic performance for a reason. Reduced revenue to the government, reduced inward investment, smaller economy due to trade deficit (even if these are outweighed by a bouyant terciary sector).

Even if the economy is doing well over all, particluarly in areas such as the financial, retail and professional service sectors, maybe that's more to do with the hours we work, and if things are so damn good, why are public services so poorly supported?

Salient point? Better to have successful primary, secondary and terciary industries than just successful terciary industry.
 
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
Top