Well, Corus, perhaps she failed her PR training under the New Labour spin doctors and shouldn't have fallen for any such traps. The question is whether she was "off-message" as the phrase is.
But in general, the whole British Leyland debacle is an exemplar of how government policy has done the manufacturing and engineering industry no service.
Basically it would appear that various companies were allowed to rip of the good bits without any oblication to the rest of the group. MG, Jaguar, Land Rover etc all being cherry picked and the core being left to rot. BMW even took out a brand name, the "Mini".
It isn't the case that the car industry is bad in the UK, but perhaps sectors of it have suffered overly from a variety of factors. I did have an illustration of the differnces that existed when I visited the then new Nissan Plant in Sunderland.
This project was a revelation. When I was there commissioning some equipment I had designed, the conveyor never stopped. Even when the operator had a problem with one of the vehicles he didn't stop the line, he went with it to fix the problem. Tea breaks and lunch breaks were partially devoted to re-stocking the trackside supply bins.
Meanwhile, at a BL (or whatever it was called then) plant in the Midlands, I never saw the conveyor moving on any of my visits and while most used automated equipment to fill windscreen reservoirs etc here they had a pallet of windscreen wash fluid in 1/2 litre bottles.
I guess there are therefore a lot of reasons we can attribute the decline to including unions, lack of investment, protectionism (nationalisation), and, of course, bad management.
Any one of which is bad news for any company but when a company suffers the whole lot and is faced by strong competition there must come a point where no-one can save it.
Insensitive comments just rub salt in the wounds.
If the group had been kept together or reasonably so then under a good owner the problems might have been resolved but since the "owners" essentially looted it of the good bits, what was left had little chance. Perhaps that was deliberate, a competitor eliminated.
Sad, because I thought the Rover 75 an excellent car and had hoped it might prove a way forward.
Now one asks just what role government had or should have had or should not have had in all this.
Too many industries that struggled were nationalised, which kept them going, but nothing was done to modernise them, reform working practices or fit them for a future when they could survive alone. When finally privatised they were left entirely to market forces they were ill equipped to survive.
From this I conclude that neither political regime can take any credit and neither Nationalisation nor Privatisation as exclusive policies has been a success though had these policies been integrated they both might have been very beneficial.
The UK government is obsessed with the service sector yet when we look at this sector we find only lip service paid to it and a lack of real and constructive policy; one reason why the UK is strong in the marine sector is its maritime history and the accumulated skills and knowledge and not its current merchant shipping capability, but try and find effective government support or policy that encourages this. It may seem that government is good at taking credit but not at constructive help. But in my view the less governments of whatevere colour do, the better because all too frequently they are part of the problem not the solution.
JMW