Did you check the UK Hoover site?

Here's what it says:

"...In 1985 Hoover merged with the Chicago Pacific Corporation, based in the USA. Four years later, Chicago Pacific was acquired by domestic appliance giant The Maytag Corporation. The Hoover European Appliance Group came into existence in 1993 and is now part of Candy S.p.A, a private company based in Brugherio in Northern Italy..."

The thing is though, unless you actually buy and own the brand you're none the wiser nowadays with brand reliabiity. I recall Ariston washers were seldom reliable as well as Colston (anyone remember them??!) machines and Indesit had poor reliability for many years. Yet, I have a Hotpoint tumble dryer now- it was cheap as chips to buy at the time, it's vented so less goes wrong in theory and its relatively quiet when in use. I'd have never considered Hotpoint now because I knew that Indesit were the backing company, but I've been honestly, quite surprised and delighted that nothing has gone wrong with the now, four year old machine and it is used every third day or once a week depending on the wash loads. Would I consider Hotpoint in the future? After putting up with a horrible White Knight for many years and kept spending excess on replacement doors (4 in all) and then the heater element burning out, I may well consider Hotpoint again for its reliability and less cost.

I think it can be quite foolish to think that buying a brand that used to be good, can still be good, nowadays. It doesn't happen very often and although I may be singled out, I don't think Dyson would have survived had he remained in the UK with production of his models - and Benny does make good points here in so far as the way in which are economy and wages are concerned.

Dyson on the other hand is not like Numatic where they are churning out ONE machine with several variations. Numatic enjoy the market they hold and they've done very well. Their position in the UK makes a lot more sense, because they aren't interested in huge sales - why else has it it taken them so long to break into the U.S market? Numatic are very different to most other vacuum brands and have followed a pattern that most other commercial brands have done - keep the basic machine in production and add design changes little by little as the years go by.

Another British brand that I miss from my child hood is Tricity and Belling. Belling I believe, was swallowed up by Creda. Belling cookers used to be well built and lasted ages. My granny had 2 of them and 2 Tricity cookers. We had a 20 something year old double range Belling that came with the house my parents bought. It just refused to die, even if its white metal parts were starting to rust exterior wise. Replaced it with a modern Belling in the 1990's and it lasted only four years with a burnt element in the main oven. 

There were 2 divisions of Merloni, almost 2 rival companies. The Merloni brothers both owned a washing machine company - one had Indesit and the other had post-91 Servis, Electra and Diplomat.

Merloni aquired Hotpoint in 2007. The WMA range was the last of the british made machines. Hotpoint and Indesit vented dryers are still made in England at the old Creda plant. I have to say, Indesit and Hotpoint washers have improved dramatically recently. When the first range of Ariston-style Hotpoints came out, they were awful. The newest range is actually pretty good.

With Hoover, despite being taken over by Candy in 1995, they were still quality, british made products. The Softwave, New Wave and early Performa machines were great. Even the Six range of the early 2000's was built to acceptable standards. The Merthyr factory continued to operate until 2009. By this time, more and more production had gone over seas and only a very limited number of products was still made in Merthyr.

Also, I believe someone mentioned Tricity? They became part of the Electrolux group in the early 80's and subsequently became the bottom range. They were still excellent machines though.  

James Dyson lost his court case against Vax over the Zen, I believe.

By the time the Vortex came out, Hoover had already been taken over by Candy. The real blow to Hoover was the free flights fiasco that ended up costing the company millions and sending them bankrupt and in need of a buyer. The first stage of the free flights offer to Europe was actually a massive success. It was the second stage of free flights to the US that killed them.

Personally, I thought that the Hoover Vortex did a much better job than the DC01. It had stronger suction power and the addition of the activator brushroll AND more practical tools. It was also of considerably better build quality. I know of a number of houses still using the original white and red Vortex cleaners. I think this pissed Mr. D off even more that Hoover had actually made a better version of his cleaner.

I agree Jamie, if Hoover had formed a good partnership with James Dyson, we could have had a fantastic cleaner and this could've saved Hoover from the disasterous Free Flights Fiasco. Mr. Dyson's cyclone works extremely well - better than any other on the market. But James Dyson is NOT a vacuum enthusiast. He is an engineer who sadly does not seem to know much about carpet care or carpet cleaning.

Yes but when you look at timeline history with Hoover products when other brands have paid Hoover to use their machines, it's not like its the other way around until now. What I'm trying to say here is that whilst Hoover and Dyson may have been good for each other, I don't think Dyson would have bowled down to have his name quashed with the Hoover brand. It is true that he could have had any other vacuum cleaner brand and model at the time - to realise that the dust bags kept clogging and were pretty much useless after the third or fourth attempt, but Dyson wanted to retain his name - and I don't think Hoover were happy to take on the brand or the invention because of the laws Dyson stipulated at the time. 

Frankly when it comes down to it, Dyson doesn't need to care tuppence about carpet cleaning, let alone grooming a carpet = these are secondary issues against the cyclone design he's done.

You all may have your own views of a Dyson vacuum that doesn't remove deep down dust - but at the end of the day, if the machine removes the dust you can see, then it shouldn't be such an issue.

Lets not also forget that the fabled, failed Sinclair C5 was bizarely run by a Hoover washing machine motor and Hoover UK went as far to service Sinclair C5 trikes. I liked that trike but it's a pity that it never took off and ultimately for Hoover, spelt another disaster.

I used to have that opinion Jamie - many years ago - much about the same time when I started to become a vacuum cleaner collector and being led into Hoover marketing mantra aspects. But, over the years having worked with contract cleaning teams cleaning both home and industrial areas with a myriad of machines, "deep down dust" is just a marketing tool phrase that Hoover et al of its rivals have continually used to sell their machines. Even Miele use similar promises with their air driven turbo brush and some would argue on here that the STB 205 doesn't go deep enough.

As consumers, we are promised this and that and the "deep down dirt" removal isn't exactly an easy process we, as owners can judge unless you waste a bag each time to view the dirt collected!

It would be all very well if the dust that was "deep down" is actually being removed - but most of the time - and I found this is more apparent with Dyson's vacs with their 100% continuous suction, I began to realise that their machines are far more aggressive because they are often removing the actual carpet fibres. This is easy to test if you have strong coloured carpet as it can all be seen in the view bin. The machines are aggressive because of the strong suction, and when there's a brush roller used in tandem, it's possible to wear a carpet out if you need to clean carpets daily - and far more damage can incur compared to a conventional bagged vacuum.

Of course, Dyson had little interest in carpet cleaning - his idea was to use a factory cyclone and make it smaller to maintain suction instead of putting up with a clogged dust bag or continually having to buy bags with conventional vacuums. You have to bear in mind, Dyson didn't want to become a vacuum cleaner brand, but rather remain as an inventor and designer, cue the wheelbarrow ball idea and the ranges of appliances, Dyson has since done.

Alex - the whole point of where Dyson got the dust bag from clogging is simply from his own experience - and its possible that you have missed that info as it is in Dyson's book. He ran out of Hoover dust bags for his Junior model, couldn't get any at the time and ended up using the dust bag again, to which point the vacuum cleaner couldn't handle the amount of dust required to fill the bag because of the clogged pores. Let's not forget Hoover went to great lengths to suggest that their dust bags were "reusable" even if we all know by now that it meant the dust bag could be used a second time after it had been shaken free of dust. Most owners however didn't know this at the time and forever used the paper dust bag a third or fourth time if it was possible. 

Alex - sorry but I just don't agree with you regarding dirty fan vac bags and clean air bags. I think it has a lot to do with the bag's design as Benny says and the way in which it is positioned - and nowadays the added filtration layers that brands fit into the bags.

For example, I know my Electrolux Z517 was a clean air machine and the bag filled from the top to the bottom, but inadvertently the dust always seemed to stick at the top by the cardboard sleeve holder - the strongest part of the dust bag where it hang locks onto the top of the locks.

I found Hoover's dust bags in the Junior and Senior were a law unto themselves depending on the Junior's model at the time like the U1012 with the top fill hose and latterly same with the U1104. The dust didn't always get deposited to the bottom of the bags. With the bottom fill bags, I used to find that new dust bags would often have dust in the middle, just above the main dust channel and eventually the dust would be pushed to the bottom as the force of more dust would eventually push through to fill the entire bag.

The dust bags in the Oreck XL (dirty fan) are far more efficient and better designed though and I found that they filled to the bottom - but never quite as full to the fullest maximum that Oreck suggested.

The only system that I've seen where dust gets properly chucked to the bottom of the dust bag and is able to fill to the top with dust is with clean air vacs like Sebo's uprights. 

Personally Jamie, I think you should buy a Sebo X1 Automatic.

Jamie, I work in HR and know a lot about how recruitment works.

The problem we're facing, is that these days, so many people have degrees - a lot of them are pointless. It's all well and good if you want to be a doctor or teacher or something that requires a lot of hard work and the right qualifications. But in your everyday office roles and less specific roles, it makes no difference. My office is full of media, music and psychology graduates all doing the same job as me, and I have no qualifications at all aside from GCSE's. There is no degree in the world that counts of common sense. You could have all the text-book smarts in the world but still not be able to figure out your arse from your elbow.

A degree used to be something that only the very intellegent and often the more wealthy people had. I'm all for equal opportunities, but now that everyone has a degree, they're not respected like they used to be.

A lot of uni graduates are coming into job interviews and talking about their degrees - we don't want to know. We don't care. Your degree doesn't mean you're capable of doing the job. We want to KNOW that you can do it. Employers these days are using more competance based interviews, where they ask for a specific example of something that you have done that fits the criteria they are looking for (the criteria is usually given to you before the interview to give you time to prepare). That way, you can demonstrate that you are fully competant and can be trained to do the job required.

As long as you can prove to an employer that you have the skills to do the role they require with the appropriate training, you'll be fine.