I would disagree with the view that British Cars were ugly - particularly at the start of the decade - E-type, Lotus Elan, TR6, MGB, original mini etc. The issues at BL were a combination of poor management, poor labour relations, brands competing with each other (Triumph & MG) with little co-operation between them, lack of investment and poor build quality.

I own a 1972 MGB so I am a tad biased!

You forgot to include in your list of issues, communist agitators doing their utmost to wreck the enterprise.

The couldn't compete, financially or aesthetically, with their European counter-parts. British cars were ugly and very utilitarian in their appearance, where as the imports were increasingly stylish and aesthetically pleasing (and by default exotic).

Whilst I don't doubt that the Unions were partially responsible for the death of the UK car industry with their intransigence, the real problem was competition. The days of a car as just a functional thing were over once competition was introduced to the market.

And for British Cars - looking like a functional box on wheels wasn't enough. There is a reason why cars like Jaguar and Roll-Royce survived, and why Ford replaced Rover and Leyland - they understood marketing and the nature of 'consumer aspiration'.

Anyone can sell something people need, when they have a limited market freedom. Once you have completion, you could produce the best ugly object for the job, and it'll still lose out to the less functional beautiful object.

People don't make purely rational decisions, in terms of economics, aesthetics are very important. Something that is more beautiful, is inherently more appealing, even if its not as good.

Companies like BMW, Mercedes, Ford etc understood this in a way that Leyland and Rover didn't (but Jaguar and Rolls Royce did).

Ugly doesn't sell, even if its really good.

I would disagree with the view that British Cars were ugly - particularly at the start of the decade - E-type, Lotus Elan, TR6, MGB, original mini etc. The issues at BL were a combination of poor management, poor labour relations, brands competing with each other (Triumph & MG) with little co-operation between them, lack of investment and poor build quality.

I own a 1972 MGB so I am a tad biased!

We do have the workforce. We lost the market share. Plain and simple. The Japanese would agree.

What I don't understand is why there hasn't been investment in industry to utilise the skills of those laid off in dockyards, steelworks etc.