VALKYRIE:
Best Ergomatic Cabbed-Lorry Model? PART 6.Page 13.TRUCKNETUKRamone:
When Leyland became BLMC in68 who was the brains behind this ,was it the government or just a bright idea from someone .If it was the government shouldnt they have had the balls to reverse the decision when they realised the truck and bus division was the only profit making part of the business or better still sell off the individual companies? There`s probably a logical reason behind not doing this but when did logic ever come into whats gone on at BL?It was Harold Wilson’s s Labour Govennment’s idea that the Leyland Motor Corporation should
merge with the British Motor Holdings -BMH,it was BMC - British Motor Corporation prior to
it’s takeover of the Jaguar Group in 1966.
BMH-BMC was badly run and on the way to going bust,and the Government held a meeting between
Leyland’s Sir Donald Stokes and BMH’s Sir George Harriman at Chequers,in order to pave the way
for the two companies to merge.The government looked upon Leyland as the saviour of BMH and
the merger would supposedly strengthen the BMH side.
As a matter of fact,talks between Leyland and BMC had been going on,in an on-off basis since 1964,and at one time BMC was on the verge of merging with AEC!- but Leyland beat them to it!
The government promised Donald Stokes a life peerage,and promised much financial help for Leyland
to help bring back the BMH side back to health if he could pull the merger off.
In the end,the so-called merger of Leyland and BMH actually turned in to a Leyland take over of
BMH.
Leyland was a very successful commercial vehicle manufacturer,and with it’s recent take overs of
Standard Triumph and then Rover Alvis,a motorcar manufacturer,but after the BMH take over,Leyland’s priority was to save the BMC-Morris Austin Division at the expense and neglect of Leyland’s original and core business!According to Donald Stokes the money to help Leyland fix BMH never showed up,Leyland’s Truck and Bus Division profits were used to support the Morris Austin car side
And that was the end of Leyland in the long run
better to let BMH-BMC to go bankrupt,and for Leyland to buy the profitable partsVALKYRIE.
Carryfast:
[ZB]
Anorak:Saviem:
Interesting thought Anorak. One major obstacle would have been the management of BMCs total inability to manage the production of product. Anyone who has not worked through the 70s,and the rule of Union Barons, and the consequential lack of managerial direction within major industrial conglomerates, could scarce believe just how bad things actually were. It must have been impossible to put any direction or forward planning into product development. Yet alone demand quality of work.We tend to think about “the Austin” in Birmingham, as the major culprit, but do not forget Cowley, or the “planted” factories at Bathgate, and Renfrew. The Unions were openly in defiance of the Socialist Government, and the attitude of, “the world owes us a job” was totally prevalent both within the conglomerates, and associated sub contractors.
The commercial vehicle industry was affected by the lack of component supply, in the main due to industrial unrest, how could any manufacturer keep his production lines going, and produce a quality product without continuity of supply?
Sorry anorak, I do not think that they would have beaten each other into shape, I think that the hemorage of Leylands cash would have come sooner rather than later. And Birmingham was a massive voter catchment, and the motor car industry in general was a massive tax earner, and no politician, socialist or tory would “bash” such a sacred cow,…only at their own peril.
No doubt others may disagree,
[ZB] Anorak wrote:-
I think the government should have intervened in the 1950s. Austin/Morris had been lagging behind in most areas of design since before the war, and Stokes’ blithe decision to leave the Continental lorry-builders to it should have set the alarm bells ringing. A politician with engineering or manufacturing experience would have raised questions about both firms’ management. A ruthless shake-up, while sales were still strong, may have prepared them both for the future. Get the fighting over while the profits were still there to pay for it, so to speak.
Carryfast wrote:-
As I remember it Austin Morris were making reasonable quality rear wheel drive cars up to the point where they decided to go down market by producing mostly mickey mouse front wheel drive products.upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c … front2.jpg
While according to most here Leyland were actually producing a world beater first with the ERGO and then with the Marathon.
when the real problem was lack of funds to develop decent wagons,assuming that is you think that the 3VTG was a better idea than the ERGO/Marathon which many seem to think that it wasn’t
and lack of wages to pay the workforce properly.Most of which were problems throughout British industry not just Leyland and probably still are at least in the case of paying decent wages.
VALKYRIE replies:-
Best Ergomatic Cabbed-Lorry Model? PART 7.Page 14.TRUCKNETUK
THE UTOPIAN IDEAL OF THE LEYLAND TAKEOVER OF BMH.
In an idealist world the Leyland takeover (or merger in the Utopian ideal) of British Motor Holdings - BMH would have probably worked in the long run,and in essence Leyland would indeed
have been the saviour of the standard quality Morris,Wolseley,Riley,MG,Austin,Vanden Plas,
and Austin Healey division - which is where most of the ills layed.Leyland would have gotten the government funds to bring back Morris Austin to A1 health and profitability,plus the workforce and component suppliers would have backed this rescue plan. And Leyland would also be able to successfully sell successful fully developed lorry,bus and motorcoach models,such as the AEC Mandator V8,the AEC Sabre V8,the fully developed premium version of the Mandator V8,desiginated 3VTG,and named the Super Mandator V8,a tilt cabbed version of the Scammell Crusader,and so on,etc 
THE HARD REALITY OF THE LEYLAND TAKEOVER OF BMH:THE KISS OF DEATH FOR LEYLAND.
Lord Donald Stokes realised that Leyland was just not big enough to compete with the likes of
Mercedes-Benz,Volkswagen,Renault,Fiat,etc,and that is another reason why he pushed for the Leyland takeover of BMH.BUT…like Goldfinger’s kiss,the takeover was the Kiss Of Death for Leyland!!!
The Morris Austin side was plagued by,strikes,overmanning,outdated working practices,militant -
trade unions and in some cases - communists,such as Red Robbo -,poor quality control,lack of
investment,a threadbare model development programme,poor styling,poor production logistics,i.e.,
factories,because of historic reasons through mergers and takeovers,were in the wrong places,at least some of these factories used outdated production methods and machinery,falling sales because of all these problems,poor management,plus probabaly some other problems that I have not mentioned
And at least some of these problems also affected and spread to the quality motorcar division:
Rover,Triumph,Jaguar,Daimler,Land Rover and Range Rover But it must be said that the BMC
front wheel drive motorcars,such as the Morris Mini Minor,Morris 1100,Morris Mini Cooper,
etc were quite advanced in their time and many other motorcar makers also adopted front wheel
drive because BMC front wheel drive motorcars were so technically successful
All of these problems took much needed money - and time,energy,concentration and priority -
away from Leyland’s core business of manufacturing lorries,buses and motorcoaches to the
great cost of the Leyland Truck And Bus Division,which proved to be fatal in the long run !!!
British Leyland was already weakened because of the overall situation,then came the Oil Crisis
in 1973,the Three Day A Week,strikes all over the place,including British Leyland car factories,and so on,all of which caused British Leyland to go bust in December 1974
And on top of all this,Leyland found itself in control of companies that were un-related to
producing motor vehicles,all of which spread top management too thinly in the field
British Leyland became state owned in 1975,and millions of taxpayers money was spent in trying
to rescue a lost cause British Leyland.Lord Stokes lost his job and became an Honoury President
of British Leyland Ltd,as it was now called.And all the time precious market share was falling in the motorcar market and lorry,bus and motorcoach markets
Most of the tax payers’ money was wasted 
In 1968,British Leyland had around 60% of the commercial vehicle market,and 40-35% of the motorcar market.In 1987,now a shadow of it’s former self,Leyland,now renamed Rover Group,had a 14% market share for new motorcars…and the commercial vehicle share was around 12% -not enough for Leyland to survive on it’s own - hence the the DAF takeover of Leyland Vehicles
THE BOOMING BRITISH MOTOR INDUSTRY OF THE 1950s.
The British Motor Industry -motorcycles,motorcars,lorries,buses,motorcoaches,etc - the companies
that produced them - was BOOMING! Our motor industry was the world’s leading exporter of motor vehicles of all kinds! Nobody thought of a merger between Leyland Motors Ltd,as it was then,and the British Motor Corporation! - what is more,Len Lord,head of BMC,when mergers later on became all the rage,was never enthusiastic about a merger with Leyland! 
The only major motorcar maker that found itself in some trouble during the 1950s-early 1960s
was Standard-Triumph,which ended up being rescued by Leyland who turned it into a successful
motorcar maker
And all of the above was the reality of the British Leyland Motor Corporation Tragi-Comedy 
VALKYRIE.
