Ian Bell wrote:
Keith G wrote:
"Ian Bell" wrote in message
...
Keith G wrote:
....is because, by the time the Far Eastern competion came on song, it
had
become utterly toss-useless and was:
Offering poorly designed ('parts bin') and poorly constructed expensive
and highly unreliable products.
Was riddled with 'us and them' management.
Was underfunded and permantly cash-poor due to unending high volumes of
warranty claims and 'head in the clouds' owners/directors remunerating
themselves out of all proportion to performance.
Don't forget the stupid unions too. I was on a stand at a pro audio
exhibition in the 70's and I needed to attach a mains plug to a piece of
equipment. I had to hide in a small cubby hole to do it because if the
exhibition electricians had seen me they would have been out on strike.
I would suggest that much of the Unions' impetus in the 60s and 70s was
fuelled by the 'us and them management' referenced above - the masses in
this country had been promised a New Deal while risking mass slaughter in
WW2 and were a bit ticked off to see the same old 'us and them' BS sliding
back into place once the smoke had cleared.
What a load of rubbish. The standard of living in the UK in the 60s was
roaring ahead and it was only the stupid union 'barons' whose ambitions
were primarily political that slowed it down. Thank god Maggie sorted those
plonkers out.
Ian
A little enlightenment (like
that displayed by the famous Japanese 'Names' at the time) would have gone
a long way to keeping this country on track, but then there was Maggie
Thatcher....
I find it interesting that two of the most successful post war
economies were the defeated nations in Germany and Japan. The other
roaring success has been the USA but I think the link to context and
culture that has been discussed so far is bang on the mark....British
post war arrogance...fuelled by the class system....created power
imbalances and disequilibrium. The unions were a reaction to pre-war
excesses and were necessary at the time but post war became part of the
class problem. Maggie was only a great leader because the 80's context
was right for Maggie...our society was fed up with the imbalance of
power and Maggie had the determination and leadership qualities to sort
it. Same was true for Churchill he was a great leader during 40-45 but
take them both out of their context and the walls came tumbling down.
Leaders come and go, but it is social cultures that matter.
Visit other parts of the world and we realise how fortunate we are to
have been born in place like the UK...The NHS relative to the vast
majority of other world healthcare is still a fantastic asset. Parents
risk their lives to get their kids to a school in parts of China and
Africa and yet so many people in the UK take our hard won 'rights' for
granted. Therefore the current threat to the UK economy is still
related to arrogance and context i.e. 'necessity is the mother of
invention' and survival is the ultimate necessity. If we want to find
success we perhaps need to embrace parts of the world that have genuine
needs rather than unfulfilled wants...by working more effectively with
China, Kenya, India and so on, we may discover the path to innovation.
I notice that Singapore has taken a duel approach. Awakened to the
threat of Shanghai it aims to strengthen its already close cultural
links and at the same time be the value added 'capital' of the Far East
by introducing policies that stimulate intersectional thinking;
integrating artists, scientists and engineers...here's the link;
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...UGT0E3EJN1.DTL
..
Robert
The real reason the British Motorcycle Industry failed...
Linear Mode
