What went wrong

carryfast · 19 February 2012 17:58

8LXBV8BRIAN:
It might have looked good on a spec sheet but in real world total rubbish,
bit like a few other motors from a lot of manufactures.

I think the problem was more one of most British operators not being able to sort out the rubbish of Gardner powered Atkis etc etc or at best 7 Litre non turbo V6 day cabbed TM’s or day cabbed,naturally aspirated ■■■■■■■ powered heaps,with nine speed fullers,from the not rubbish trucks like the 4400.At least,that was,until it was all too late to matter for the British manufacturers.At which time those customers then rushed out to buy 2800’s,F10/12’s,Scania 110/140’s etc etc.

the_mechanic_51 · 21 February 2012 16:35

I just have to type into this thread. I can’t stand that bl—dy no all having the last word.He’ already wasted it.

marky · 21 February 2012 17:14

I think it’ been an intriguing read so far. At almost every turn, a certain individual has made out that GM Detroit was always the answer and that the entire population of the UK road haulage industry didn’t know what they were doing.

Perhaps he should try & convince the ‘old money’ who are now long retired and have very, very healthy bank balances - made on the back of ‘old Gardner rubbish in Atkis & ERFs’.

If it looks like money, smells like money and crinkles like money - it generally is money; and those owd lads seem to have lots & lots of it. Not a lot (I’d take a shake and say none) of them trusted their bank balances on Detroit-engined aircraft-carrier anchors - after all, that’s what the principle use of Detroits was, wasn’t it?? Joking aside, which big-time major fleet operators made big purchases of these things? I don’t recall any ‘names’, so who were they apart from the US Navy?

Forgive me if I get this wrong, but I’ve never seen any anecdotes on here or heard elsewhere of any operators getting irate with vehicle manufacturers because the supply of Detroit engines was in constraint - unlike the ‘old rubbish’ he continually & ignorantly derides on here. Now tell me, why would that be?

carryfast · 21 February 2012 17:46

marky:
I think it’ been an intriguing read so far. At almost every turn, a certain individual has made out that GM Detroit was always the answer and that the entire population of the UK road haulage industry didn’t know what they were doing.

Perhaps he should try & convince the ‘old money’ who are now long retired and have very, very healthy bank balances - made on the back of ‘old Gardner rubbish in Atkis & ERFs’.

If it looks like money, smells like money and crinkles like money - it generally is money; and those owd lads seem to have lots & lots of it. Not a lot (I’d take a shake and say none) of them trusted their bank balances on Detroit-engined aircraft-carrier anchors - after all, that’s what the principle use of Detroits was, wasn’t it?? Joking aside, which big-time major fleet operators made big purchases of these things? I don’t recall any ‘names’, so who were they apart from the US Navy?

Forgive me if I get this wrong, but I’ve never seen any anecdotes on here or heard elsewhere of any operators getting irate with vehicle manufacturers because the supply of Detroit engines was in constraint - unlike the ‘old rubbish’ he continually & ignorantly derides on here. Now tell me, why would that be?

If you’d have read my comments properly it wasn’t a case of Detroit v the rest it was a case of modern more comfortable cabs and turbocharged high torque engines v day cabbed heaps fitted with naturally aspirated gutless boat anchors of all types.Yeah right those operators made a few quid by running rubbish,but the issue of what went wrong for the British manufacturers,was that they were lumbered with customers who thought like you at the time.Which stalled development in the domestic market for the domestic industry.However those customers were then happy enough to jump ship over to the foreign competition when they ‘eventually’ realised that,although their Gardner engined day cabbed heaps were making a few bob,a good modern wagon was even better.

Then to add insult to injury those operators and many others to this day blame the British manufacturers and those who worked in the industry for it not those backward thinking operators.

marky · 21 February 2012 19:06

TM51 was right - always has to have the last word.

I will say this - the reason I didn’t read most (if any) of the Carryfart replies to this thread is because it’s mundane, brow-beating dross - just like all the other posts on all the other threads. It never varies - it always beats out at the same rate, about the same things. It’s boring, last-word monotony.

The angler in me couldn’t help comparing the last reply to the old ‘float always goes under while you’re pouring yourself a brew’ routine. You know it’s going to happen, but you can’t just think why it keeps happening, then you realise that if the bait’s put in front of the prey…

casual_observer · 21 February 2012 19:20

Stalled development . Mmmmmmmmmmmm.

You seem to enjoy decrying everything UK made at that time , rubbish & Gardner daycab heaps , as in your last post .

If we look again at dates ,almost everything made back then had a much longer production life than now , where vehicles get a facelift almost every year , & a complete revamp every 5 or so .

Back then , things progressed much more slowly , the longevity of designs & also no doubt , the development time of new products .

But these rubbish heaps as you keep referring to , were the workhorses of British road transport at that time , & as such were more than capable & mostly reliable .

As I said in a previous post , manufacturers were certainly not as customer focussed as today .

But surely the operators cannot be held solely to blame , merely for purchasing what was available . They can only purchase what is made , if no Detroit powered Aerodyne equivalent is made , then it cannot be purchased .

If no manufacturer updates their designs , & continues to make old school , then that is what will be bought , & as other newer type imports arrive & appeal , then these will be bought in place . This is a manufacturer issue , not an operator one .

As an aside , in the Leyland story , was there a case they should have been more ruthless dropping old names in their make up earlier ( AEC , Albion ,BMC , Guy , Scammell , & concentrated on one or two identities , with rationalised production facilities . This may well have saved money , which may have been more beneficial in research & development.

carryfast · 21 February 2012 20:41

Casual Observer:
Stalled development . Mmmmmmmmmmmm.

You seem to enjoy decrying everything UK made at that time , rubbish & Gardner daycab heaps , as in your last post .

If we look again at dates ,almost everything made back then had a much longer production life than now , where vehicles get a facelift almost every year , & a complete revamp every 5 or so .

Back then , things progressed much more slowly , the longevity of designs & also no doubt , the development time of new products .

But these rubbish heaps as you keep referring to , were the workhorses of British road transport at that time , & as such were more than capable & mostly reliable .

As I said in a previous post , manufacturers were certainly not as customer focussed as today .

But surely the operators cannot be held solely to blame , merely for purchasing what was available . They can only purchase what is made , if no Detroit powered Aerodyne equivalent is made , then it cannot be purchased .

If no manufacturer updates their designs , & continues to make old school , then that is what will be bought , & as other newer type imports arrive & appeal , then these will be bought in place . This is a manufacturer issue , not an operator one .

As an aside , in the Leyland story , was there a case they should have been more ruthless dropping old names in their make up earlier ( AEC , Albion ,BMC , Guy , Scammell , & concentrated on one or two identities , with rationalised production facilities . This may well have saved money , which may have been more beneficial in research & development.

None of which explains why it was that British manufacturers mainly just had buyers in the British market for day cabbed Gardner or naturally aspirated ■■■■■■■ powered heaps and TM’s fitted with non turbocharged 7 Litre V6 engines but no sales leads asking for trucks like the the 4400.The reason why the British manufacturers,were offering those outdated trucks at the time,when the foreign ones were able to develop much better trucks,was because those foreign manufacturers had the ‘demand’ for those better trucks in their home markets much sooner,unlike the British manufacturers.

This was most definitely a case of manufacturers only building what they could sell not a case of customers only buying what was available.

ramone · 21 February 2012 21:10

Carryfast:

Casual Observer:
Stalled development . Mmmmmmmmmmmm.

You seem to enjoy decrying everything UK made at that time , rubbish & Gardner daycab heaps , as in your last post .

If we look again at dates ,almost everything made back then had a much longer production life than now , where vehicles get a facelift almost every year , & a complete revamp every 5 or so .

Back then , things progressed much more slowly , the longevity of designs & also no doubt , the development time of new products .

But these rubbish heaps as you keep referring to , were the workhorses of British road transport at that time , & as such were more than capable & mostly reliable .

As I said in a previous post , manufacturers were certainly not as customer focussed as today .

But surely the operators cannot be held solely to blame , merely for purchasing what was available . They can only purchase what is made , if no Detroit powered Aerodyne equivalent is made , then it cannot be purchased .

If no manufacturer updates their designs , & continues to make old school , then that is what will be bought , & as other newer type imports arrive & appeal , then these will be bought in place . This is a manufacturer issue , not an operator one .

As an aside , in the Leyland story , was there a case they should have been more ruthless dropping old names in their make up earlier ( AEC , Albion ,BMC , Guy , Scammell , & concentrated on one or two identities , with rationalised production facilities . This may well have saved money , which may have been more beneficial in research & development.

None of which explains why it was that British manufacturers mainly just had buyers in the British market for day cabbed Gardner or naturally aspirated ■■■■■■■ powered heaps and TM’s fitted with non turbocharged 7 Litre V6 engines but no sales leads asking for trucks like the the 4400.The reason why the British manufacturers,were offering those outdated trucks at the time,when the foreign ones were able to develop much better trucks,was because those foreign manufacturers had the ‘demand’ for those better trucks in their home markets much sooner,unlike the British manufacturers.

This was most definitely a case of manufacturers only building what they could sell not a case of customers only buying what was available.

I keep saying to myself i wont reply again to this broken record but,the reason why we had TMs Transcons Marathons,ERF B series and SAs was that they were trying to fight back against the foreign invasion.But according to yourself there was no foreign invasion because all those backward thinking hauliers were only buying day cabbed underpowered Gardners,so you are contradicting yourself.No one wanted the big Detroit just like no one wanted a V8 Scania or a 350 ■■■■■■■ in a Transcon in the mid 70s even though a few were sold .They wanted bread and butter motors some sticking with the old if it isn`t broken dont mend it Gardners and others opting for these new fangled foreigners but they all had something in common they picked for whatever reason the vehicles they thought matched their needs the best

carryfast · 21 February 2012 22:27

ramone:

Carryfast:

Casual Observer:
Stalled development . Mmmmmmmmmmmm.

You seem to enjoy decrying everything UK made at that time , rubbish & Gardner daycab heaps , as in your last post .

If we look again at dates ,almost everything made back then had a much longer production life than now , where vehicles get a facelift almost every year , & a complete revamp every 5 or so .

Back then , things progressed much more slowly , the longevity of designs & also no doubt , the development time of new products .

But these rubbish heaps as you keep referring to , were the workhorses of British road transport at that time , & as such were more than capable & mostly reliable .

As I said in a previous post , manufacturers were certainly not as customer focussed as today .

But surely the operators cannot be held solely to blame , merely for purchasing what was available . They can only purchase what is made , if no Detroit powered Aerodyne equivalent is made , then it cannot be purchased .

If no manufacturer updates their designs , & continues to make old school , then that is what will be bought , & as other newer type imports arrive & appeal , then these will be bought in place . This is a manufacturer issue , not an operator one .

As an aside , in the Leyland story , was there a case they should have been more ruthless dropping old names in their make up earlier ( AEC , Albion ,BMC , Guy , Scammell , & concentrated on one or two identities , with rationalised production facilities . This may well have saved money , which may have been more beneficial in research & development.

None of which explains why it was that British manufacturers mainly just had buyers in the British market for day cabbed Gardner or naturally aspirated ■■■■■■■ powered heaps and TM’s fitted with non turbocharged 7 Litre V6 engines but no sales leads asking for trucks like the the 4400.The reason why the British manufacturers,were offering those outdated trucks at the time,when the foreign ones were able to develop much better trucks,was because those foreign manufacturers had the ‘demand’ for those better trucks in their home markets much sooner,unlike the British manufacturers.

This was most definitely a case of manufacturers only building what they could sell not a case of customers only buying what was available.

I keep saying to myself i wont reply again to this broken record but,the reason why we had TMs Transcons Marathons,ERF B series and SAs was that they were trying to fight back against the foreign invasion.But according to yourself there was no foreign invasion because all those backward thinking hauliers were only buying day cabbed underpowered Gardners,so you are contradicting yourself.No one wanted the big Detroit just like no one wanted a V8 Scania or a 350 ■■■■■■■ in a Transcon in the mid 70s even though a few were sold .They wanted bread and butter motors some sticking with the old if it isn`t broken dont mend it Gardners and others opting for these new fangled foreigners but they all had something in common they picked for whatever reason the vehicles they thought matched their needs the best

Within all that is contained the total contradiction within your argument not mine.For the umpteenth zb time there was a foreign invasion of better trucks that had been designed to meet the demands in their domestic markets not ours.However that invasion here came ‘after’ the point where the customers here had turned down the idea of better trucks previously.

Therefore the foreign manufacturers were able to design better trucks to meet a demand in their own markets whereas ours were stuck with having to produce trucks to meet local demands here at the time.Which,as you’ve admitted,were exactly the type of gutless,uncomfortable heaps,which at the time were in demand by the British operators,but which,as I’ve said,eventually sank the British industry when the British operators ‘eventually’ came to their senses and jumped ship from the types of heap which they’d been demanding that the British manufacturers provide them with previously.

saviem · 21 February 2012 22:34

OH DEAR, this is becoming boring, and due to carryfast denuded of any purpose or meaning, (just as did a similar thremed thread proposed by sammyoposite last year)!! To bring some facts to the increasingly aimless, class war obsessed, and deluded ramblings let us consider, by way of simple questions, some pertinent factors affecting the purchase requirements of UK operators in the 60s-70s period. What constraints were placed on the market by legislation? Gross vehicle weight, legal overall length, legality of sleeping in a work place, (lorry, and their effect on design, and market requirements.) The state of the European domestic market, and its effect on the need to find an outlet for its vehicle production, (pertinent to France, Germany, Sweden, Holland) The effect of large volume orders for vehicles placed by the US Government with primarily German manufacturers , and the effect of these on the participating companies, in terms of reducing production cost, cash flow, (paid for in advance), and overhead absorbtion . All of these points, and the quite obvious answers are pertinent to the original question. I do not hold my breath for any sensible answer. Bon Nuit, I`m away to the Bollinger, to drown out my sadness for my homeland. Cheerio for now.

carryfast · 21 February 2012 23:15

Saviem:
OH DEAR, this is becoming boring, and due to carryfast denuded of any purpose or meaning, (just as did a similar thremed thread proposed by sammyoposite last year)!! To bring some facts to the increasingly aimless, class war obsessed, and deluded ramblings let us consider, by way of simple questions, some pertinent factors affecting the purchase requirements of UK operators in the 60s-70s period. What constraints were placed on the market by legislation? Gross vehicle weight, legal overall length, legality of sleeping in a work place, (lorry, and their effect on design, and market requirements.) The state of the European domestic market, and its effect on the need to find an outlet for its vehicle production, (pertinent to France, Germany, Sweden, Holland) The effect of large volume orders for vehicles placed by the US Government with primarily German manufacturers , and the effect of these on the participating companies, in terms of reducing production cost, cash flow, (paid for in advance), and overhead absorbtion . All of these points, and the quite obvious answers are pertinent to the original question. I do not hold my breath for any sensible answer. Bon Nuit, I`m away to the Bollinger, to drown out my sadness for my homeland. Cheerio for now.

The fact is that trucks like the DAF 2800 and F10/12 weren’t designed to meet any large scale demand in the British market when they were introduced onto the European markets as a whole.There was ‘some’ small demand for the things here at the time but nowhere near enough to have provided Leyland with any viable financial provision or incentive to have developed such a truck here because most British operators were still using outdated ideas in regard to comfort levels and power outputs.There were no laws or differences which applied in the domestic markets at that time which would have explained the reasons for that situation except customer demands and buying habits.Just as Bedford found in being able to sell the day cabbed 7 Litre V6 non turbo TM but no demand whatsoever for a big cabbed 8V92 powered option which would have been one of,if not the only,British truck available at the time which would have been a competitor to the 2800,F10/12,Scania 110/140 series when those type of trucks did,eventually,get large scale acceptance in the British domestic market.Too late for the Brit manufacturers unfortunately.

ramone · 22 February 2012 20:24

I just cannot be bothered anymore ,so here goes , Carryfast you are 100% correct with every single comment you have made on this thread and every other thread on here.You have shown everyone ,with your wisdom and extreme intelligence a clean pair of heels.No one on here can hold a torch to you and i have a proposal CARRYFAST FOR PRESIDENT ,… i bet he will find something to disagree with though

skudo · 25 February 2012 22:47

Actually,most of the Mercs and Volvos that I drove from the 80’s had ZF or range change boxes along with 2 speed axles,etc.It was only british trucks that seemed to favour twin splitters from what I remember,such as S-A’s ERF’s and Fodens,although Sainsburys were probably the odd ones out with their fleet of Fodens,which were mainly fitted with Cat engines and range change boxes,but this was only because the majority of their drivers,wouldn’t or couldn’t, drive them with twin splitters(and most of those at their Rye Park depot burst into flames and destroyed themselves)Probably the most ridiculous motor I ever drove was a dustcart with a twin splitter,which was totally unsuited for the purpose,but this was obviously because the transport dept,on a certain council I used to work,for thought it was patriotic to buy british.What would be the choice of the vast majority of drivers on long distance work,when given the choice of a Scania or Volvo,or an Erf or Foden.

skudo · 25 February 2012 23:47

Carryfast:

Carl Williams:
The main factor that went wrong was weak poor government in the seventies, under Wilson, Heath and Callaghan.
I have already given my views of the fiasco of the Bedford takeover of Leyland, but had problems been dealt with in the late sixties early seventies that would not have occurred. The days of Red Rob and the likes strangling our industries took away the money that was so needed for research and development.
To summarise I will illustrate by an industry I knew about, and I hope you forgive me for deviating. In the early sixties Jules Thorn with his Thorn Electrical Industries (Later Thorn EMI) started the production of fridges at their Spennymoor plant. We delivered them. They had 80% of the UK market with their Tricity products. Electric Cookers were also made at the same plant, which was very profitable.
Unfortunately two things went wrong. We joined the EU and communism spread within the trade union movement that got a stranglehold on industry.
Zanussi of Italy started importing into the UK and soon were saturating the market. Thorn had problems competing especially when they found out that every fridge Zanussi made was subsidised by the Italian government which was against EU rules. As usual our government were playing cricket strictly to the rules, whereas the Italians were looking after themselves.
Whilst this was happening Thorn had dreadful problems with industrial relations. Over a ten year period they never had a day’s production when there was not a strike, a go slow or an overtime ban. There was no hope. Profit was being taken away to Italy, and production costs were inflated because of industrial relations
When Thatcher came in she took a hard strong control, to sort out industrial relations, which argumently was the only way to sort things out. But this created a situation which was the survival of the fittest. Thorn, like the Commercial Vehicle Industry had suffered years of losses with no profits. There is no fridge production now at Spennymoor and a factory complex that had employed 8,500 people was no more. Zanussi , I understand are a large Italian employer. Does that situation sound familiar?

I think your logic is about as good as the average British truck operator during the 1970’s.Firstly you’ve raised the issues of zb governments and then EEC membership and unfair competition with our so called EEC ‘trading partners’ (competitors).All good so far.However the fact is it’s a self preservation society and no one can blame the Italians for looking after themselves but we can blame the British government for our EEC membership and the subsequent ‘trade’ with our competitors in an institution which anyone with even the slightest intelligence would know were only in it for themselves not for us.

As for so called communism amongst the rank and file members of the British unions I think that was more an issue with the government ministers like Wilson and Thatcher over the years who’ve thrown our interests away to the benefit of places like Eastern Europe,Russia and China and ironically Northern Italy has never exactly been a bastion of non communist activeties either .

I’ve been a union member and supporter over the years and during the time when all this mattered and from my point of view and most others at the time,British union activeties and aims were no different to those of our American counterparts like the Teamsters and the UAWU and what we saw was a country being subjected to massive price led inflation,caused by EEC membership,oil price increases,and a government that wouldn’t do anything to help such as reducing indirect taxation on goods and services and selling oil on the domestic market at near cost price just like the other oil producers but which at the same time didn’t want any wage increase demands to match those price increases.Any attempts by the British unions to do something about that situation was,not surprisingly,met by our communist run government calling everyone else a zb communist not them who were the real zb commies.

Anyway Thatcher got what she wanted and look where the economy is now and who’s benefitted from it.No surprise it’s Eastern Europe,Russia and zb China and their zb commie collaborators within the British ‘establishment’.

However none of that explains why it was that Bedford found it easier to flog some day cabbed 7 Litre non turbo V6 powered TM’s than any 4400’s to run at 32 t gross.

I totally agree with your sentiments on unions,and without a shadow of a doubt it was thatcher who had a demented,psychotic,hatred of unions and used this false spew about communist led unions destroying the economy.
She was possibly the most evil,unpatriotic,politician of recent times and used her time in power to line the pockets of her rich supporters,whilst destroying the working class.I was working for National Freight in 1978 and if we didn’t have a union that called a strike we would still have been slogging away for 90 quid a week,instead we got a pay rise,but there are those that would have us believe that unions are only interested in calling strikes for no reason.
Those fools that run NF were also responsible for losing profitable contracts,by continuing to purchase all the old British rubbish,such as FG’s,Commers,Erf’s,and just about every other unreliable motors they could get hold of at a knockdown price.This obviously wasn’t to the liking of most of their customers,as their vehicles were off the road more than they were on it.Those idiots,along with Thatcher and the manufacturers,were responsible for the degeneration and destruction of the British manufacturing base,and like it or not,that’s what is wrong with Britain and you can’t blame Europe for that.
The British way has always been to treat the workers like crap and make as much profit from them as possible for the least outlay and then sling them on the crapheap when they complain.

carl_williams · 26 February 2012 10:57

skudo:

Carryfast:

Carl Williams:
The main factor that went wrong was weak poor government in the seventies, under Wilson, Heath and Callaghan.
I have already given my views of the fiasco of the Bedford takeover of Leyland, but had problems been dealt with in the late sixties early seventies that would not have occurred. The days of Red Rob and the likes strangling our industries took away the money that was so needed for research and development.
To summarise I will illustrate by an industry I knew about, and I hope you forgive me for deviating. In the early sixties Jules Thorn with his Thorn Electrical Industries (Later Thorn EMI) started the production of fridges at their Spennymoor plant. We delivered them. They had 80% of the UK market with their Tricity products. Electric Cookers were also made at the same plant, which was very profitable.
Unfortunately two things went wrong. We joined the EU and communism spread within the trade union movement that got a stranglehold on industry.
Zanussi of Italy started importing into the UK and soon were saturating the market. Thorn had problems competing especially when they found out that every fridge Zanussi made was subsidised by the Italian government which was against EU rules. As usual our government were playing cricket strictly to the rules, whereas the Italians were looking after themselves.
Whilst this was happening Thorn had dreadful problems with industrial relations. Over a ten year period they never had a day’s production when there was not a strike, a go slow or an overtime ban. There was no hope. Profit was being taken away to Italy, and production costs were inflated because of industrial relations
When Thatcher came in she took a hard strong control, to sort out industrial relations, which argumently was the only way to sort things out. But this created a situation which was the survival of the fittest. Thorn, like the Commercial Vehicle Industry had suffered years of losses with no profits. There is no fridge production now at Spennymoor and a factory complex that had employed 8,500 people was no more. Zanussi , I understand are a large Italian employer. Does that situation sound familiar?

I think your logic is about as good as the average British truck operator during the 1970’s.Firstly you’ve raised the issues of zb governments and then EEC membership and unfair competition with our so called EEC ‘trading partners’ (competitors).All good so far.However the fact is it’s a self preservation society and no one can blame the Italians for looking after themselves but we can blame the British government for our EEC membership and the subsequent ‘trade’ with our competitors in an institution which anyone with even the slightest intelligence would know were only in it for themselves not for us.

As for so called communism amongst the rank and file members of the British unions I think that was more an issue with the government ministers like Wilson and Thatcher over the years who’ve thrown our interests away to the benefit of places like Eastern Europe,Russia and China and ironically Northern Italy has never exactly been a bastion of non communist activeties either .

I’ve been a union member and supporter over the years and during the time when all this mattered and from my point of view and most others at the time,British union activeties and aims were no different to those of our American counterparts like the Teamsters and the UAWU and what we saw was a country being subjected to massive price led inflation,caused by EEC membership,oil price increases,and a government that wouldn’t do anything to help such as reducing indirect taxation on goods and services and selling oil on the domestic market at near cost price just like the other oil producers but which at the same time didn’t want any wage increase demands to match those price increases.Any attempts by the British unions to do something about that situation was,not surprisingly,met by our communist run government calling everyone else a zb communist not them who were the real zb commies.

Anyway Thatcher got what she wanted and look where the economy is now and who’s benefitted from it.No surprise it’s Eastern Europe,Russia and zb China and their zb commie collaborators within the British ‘establishment’.

However none of that explains why it was that Bedford found it easier to flog some day cabbed 7 Litre non turbo V6 powered TM’s than any 4400’s to run at 32 t gross.

I totally agree with your sentiments on unions,and without a shadow of a doubt it was thatcher who had a demented,psychotic,hatred of unions and used this false spew about communist led unions destroying the economy.
She was possibly the most evil,unpatriotic,politician of recent times and used her time in power to line the pockets of her rich supporters,whilst destroying the working class.I was working for National Freight in 1978 and if we didn’t have a union that called a strike we would still have been slogging away for 90 quid a week,instead we got a pay rise,but there are those that would have us believe that unions are only interested in calling strikes for no reason.
Those fools that run NF were also responsible for losing profitable contracts,by continuing to purchase all the old British rubbish,such as FG’s,Commers,Erf’s,and just about every other unreliable motors they could get hold of at a knockdown price.This obviously wasn’t to the liking of most of their customers,as their vehicles were off the road more than they were on it.Those idiots,along with Thatcher and the manufacturers,were responsible for the degeneration and destruction of the British manufacturing base,and like it or not,that’s what is wrong with Britain and you can’t blame Europe for that.
The British way has always been to treat the workers like crap and make as much profit from them as possible for the least outlay and then sling them on the crapheap when they complain.

Hi

I’m afraid you have got your history wrong.

You quote 1978 which was before Thatcher.
Have you not heard of ‘The Winter of Discontent’ under Callaghan

Unfortunatly I lived and worked during the sixties ad early seventies when we had the Hypo Inflation, and read daily of what happend at BMC when Red Rob destroyed the country together with his political friends who controlled the dockers’ unions.

I think it would be helpful for you to read the history of what happened in this country in the seventies. for reference Margaret Thatcher came to
power in 1979, and I am sure you would be interested at the financal state of the UK at this time. Have you watched the news of what is happening tday in Greece.In UK The International Monetry Fund had taken over telling Callaghan what he had to do so we could get the money to feed our population.

Regards
Carl

carryfast · 26 February 2012 11:47

Carl Williams:

skudo:

Carryfast:

Carl Williams:
The main factor that went wrong was weak poor government in the seventies, under Wilson, Heath and Callaghan.
I have already given my views of the fiasco of the Bedford takeover of Leyland, but had problems been dealt with in the late sixties early seventies that would not have occurred. The days of Red Rob and the likes strangling our industries took away the money that was so needed for research and development.
To summarise I will illustrate by an industry I knew about, and I hope you forgive me for deviating. In the early sixties Jules Thorn with his Thorn Electrical Industries (Later Thorn EMI) started the production of fridges at their Spennymoor plant. We delivered them. They had 80% of the UK market with their Tricity products. Electric Cookers were also made at the same plant, which was very profitable.
Unfortunately two things went wrong. We joined the EU and communism spread within the trade union movement that got a stranglehold on industry.
Zanussi of Italy started importing into the UK and soon were saturating the market. Thorn had problems competing especially when they found out that every fridge Zanussi made was subsidised by the Italian government which was against EU rules. As usual our government were playing cricket strictly to the rules, whereas the Italians were looking after themselves.
Whilst this was happening Thorn had dreadful problems with industrial relations. Over a ten year period they never had a day’s production when there was not a strike, a go slow or an overtime ban. There was no hope. Profit was being taken away to Italy, and production costs were inflated because of industrial relations
When Thatcher came in she took a hard strong control, to sort out industrial relations, which argumently was the only way to sort things out. But this created a situation which was the survival of the fittest. Thorn, like the Commercial Vehicle Industry had suffered years of losses with no profits. There is no fridge production now at Spennymoor and a factory complex that had employed 8,500 people was no more. Zanussi , I understand are a large Italian employer. Does that situation sound familiar?

I think your logic is about as good as the average British truck operator during the 1970’s.Firstly you’ve raised the issues of zb governments and then EEC membership and unfair competition with our so called EEC ‘trading partners’ (competitors).All good so far.However the fact is it’s a self preservation society and no one can blame the Italians for looking after themselves but we can blame the British government for our EEC membership and the subsequent ‘trade’ with our competitors in an institution which anyone with even the slightest intelligence would know were only in it for themselves not for us.

As for so called communism amongst the rank and file members of the British unions I think that was more an issue with the government ministers like Wilson and Thatcher over the years who’ve thrown our interests away to the benefit of places like Eastern Europe,Russia and China and ironically Northern Italy has never exactly been a bastion of non communist activeties either .

I’ve been a union member and supporter over the years and during the time when all this mattered and from my point of view and most others at the time,British union activeties and aims were no different to those of our American counterparts like the Teamsters and the UAWU and what we saw was a country being subjected to massive price led inflation,caused by EEC membership,oil price increases,and a government that wouldn’t do anything to help such as reducing indirect taxation on goods and services and selling oil on the domestic market at near cost price just like the other oil producers but which at the same time didn’t want any wage increase demands to match those price increases.Any attempts by the British unions to do something about that situation was,not surprisingly,met by our communist run government calling everyone else a zb communist not them who were the real zb commies.

Anyway Thatcher got what she wanted and look where the economy is now and who’s benefitted from it.No surprise it’s Eastern Europe,Russia and zb China and their zb commie collaborators within the British ‘establishment’.

However none of that explains why it was that Bedford found it easier to flog some day cabbed 7 Litre non turbo V6 powered TM’s than any 4400’s to run at 32 t gross.

I totally agree with your sentiments on unions,and without a shadow of a doubt it was thatcher who had a demented,psychotic,hatred of unions and used this false spew about communist led unions destroying the economy.
She was possibly the most evil,unpatriotic,politician of recent times and used her time in power to line the pockets of her rich supporters,whilst destroying the working class.I was working for National Freight in 1978 and if we didn’t have a union that called a strike we would still have been slogging away for 90 quid a week,instead we got a pay rise,but there are those that would have us believe that unions are only interested in calling strikes for no reason.
Those fools that run NF were also responsible for losing profitable contracts,by continuing to purchase all the old British rubbish,such as FG’s,Commers,Erf’s,and just about every other unreliable motors they could get hold of at a knockdown price.This obviously wasn’t to the liking of most of their customers,as their vehicles were off the road more than they were on it.Those idiots,along with Thatcher and the manufacturers,were responsible for the degeneration and destruction of the British manufacturing base,and like it or not,that’s what is wrong with Britain and you can’t blame Europe for that.
The British way has always been to treat the workers like crap and make as much profit from them as possible for the least outlay and then sling them on the crapheap when they complain.

Hi

I’m afraid you have got your history wrong.

You quote 1978 which was before Thatcher.
Have you not heard of ‘The Winter of Discontent’ under Callaghan

Unfortunatly I lived and worked during the sixties ad early seventies when we had the Hypo Inflation, and read daily of what happend at BMC when Red Rob destroyed the country together with his political friends who controlled the dockers’ unions.

I think it would be helpful for you to read the history of what happened in this country in the seventies. for reference Margaret Thatcher came to
power in 1979, and I am sure you would be interested at the financal state of the UK at this time. Have you watched the news of what is happening tday in Greece.In UK The International Monetry Fund had taken over telling Callaghan what he had to do so we could get the money to feed our population.

Regards
Carl

More patronising bs.Both skudo and myself obviously know our history of what happened back in the day because we were there too remember.It’s just that,unlike us,you’ve got a typical misunderstanding of basic economics.It was Callaghan who introduced the zb’d up idea of wage controls to limit PRICE LED inflation.At that point we still had enough industry and people in work to fight against his stupid ideas by way of industrial action.

The cause of the problem in the economy and the industrial unrest at that time under Callaghan was exactly because of that issue of wages lagging behind prices just as is the case today.However unlike today and since Thatcher got in it was actually the unions that had kept the economy afloat,during the early to mid 1970’s,by keeping wage levels high enough,during EEC membership price level equalisation and the OPEC oil price increases,to allow people to keep spending on buying stuff.

But then Callaghan and Healey decided to challenge the status quo by trying to use the stupid idea of controlling wages in an attempt to control prices instead of just controlling prices directly.The result,just like today,was the sart of a massive recession because people stopped spending together with strikes by the unions (to try to) get the economy back on the rails.

The unions failed to beat Callaghan and then zb Thatcher got in and finished the job by deciding to use mass unemployment through factory closures and de industrialisation to rig the labour market by creating massive over supply of labour.

The rest is history and that’s why the zb place is where it is today.No one can afford to buy enough to keep the economy growing and what they do buy is mostly imports which just creates a situation of a massive trade and economic deficit caused by buying goods,that we could be making for ourselves,using borrowed money.

The fact is we are in more or less the same position as Greece which is just a reflection of the fact that you can’t have a developed industrialised standard of living without having a developed industrialised economy that pays decent wages.Which is why,so far,Germany hasn’t got itself into the same situation as us or Greece.Yet.

kr79 · 26 February 2012 12:22

That last paragraph is the only bit of sense you have ever spoke.

carryfast · 26 February 2012 15:19

kr79:
That last paragraph is the only bit of sense you have ever spoke.

If the last pararagraph makes sense than how is it that none of the other paragraphs do in your world .

The only difference between us and Germany was that German employers know/knew that there’s no way that you can run a developed economy without paying decent wages for people to spend on buying things and the German government know/knew that if possible you need to make sure that the money they spend is spent on goods made at home in the domestic economy.

In which case the German workers,unlike their British counterparts,didn’t need to strike for better wages,to keep wages in line with prices,because they were already getting those wages and unlike British industry Germany industry wasn’t subjected to the levels of foreign competition that Britain’s was because the Germans knew that it’s better to pay the workers enough to buy good quality home produced products,while the Brits were only paid enough to buy,at worst,cheap imported zb products and/or,at best, cheap home produced zb products.

Unluckily for us we were lumbered with zb governments like those of zb Callaghan and then,even worse,Thatcher who were working for the interests of the Communists like China not ours.Which is why Germany has,so far,stayed richer than us even without the benefit of North Sea oil.Although,like us,it’s now allowing itself to be gradually sucked into the idea of the global free market economy,in which it’s China that will be the winner not us or Germany.

boris · 27 February 2012 21:33

This might be a stupid question…but why did operators suddenly decide to go out and buy high horse power sleeper cabbed lorries - around the mid 70s ■■ was there a change in law? - someone please explain

dave_the_renegade · 27 February 2012 21:46

boris:
This might be a stupid question…but why did operators suddenly decide to go out and buy high horse power sleeper cabbed lorries - around the mid 70s ■■ was there a change in law? - someone please explain

I think the drivers were fed up with sleeping on a board rigged up between the door and the seat Boris.The Volvo 86 gave them a fresh insight in how to get a better nights sleep by introducing a rest cab.
Cheers Dave.