TOPICS OF THE DAY.
THE NATIONALIZATION OF LIQUOR.
IT is with exceptional satisfaction that we publish this week a series of important letters about the nationalization of the Drink Trade. Nothing could be more encouraging than the fact that some influential leaders of Labour are now turning their attention to this question. It is hardly an exaggeration to say that during the War Labour stood in the *ay. There was a moment in 1915 when Mr. Lloyd George had a scheme in his pocket for the nationalization of drink. He believed in his scheme, as his numerous speeches attest, and he was anxious to put it into operation. If he had had the support of Labour he :•ould have gone ahead ; the liquor trade could have been bought out at a much more reasonable price than is now possible, and the -vigour of the nation in prosecuting the war would have been enormously increased. Instead of helping Mr. Lloyd George many leaders of Labour harped 3ontinually on the unrest which they said was due to the !aek of beer. But now a Labour campaign has been started to nationalize liquor and it deserves all the support and encouragement it can get. We earnestly hope the country will not be blind to this splendid opportunity. At the head of the movement is Mr. J. H. Thomas.
It is most important that something should be done quickly or we shall slide back into the bad old conditions which disgraced us before the War. Every impartial person must admit that the nation benefited greatly both physically and morally by the control of drink during the War—by the restriction of hours during which liquor could be sold, and by the progressive limitation of the amount of beer that might be brewed and the amount of spirits that might be distilled, Crime and infantile mortality became. less ; the productive capacity of workers improved and time-keeping in the factories became more regular. Is it zonceivable that with our eyes open we should return to the old state of. things ? All our energy and alertness will be needed in the tremendous trade competition which lies before us. The restrictions on the amount of beer brewed have already been removed. The hours during which public-houses may remain open are still limited, but the tendency is for control to disappear and for nothing to be put in its place. We know that it is said that the improvement in the figures of crime and drunkenness were remarkable during the War in the areas subject to little control as well as in the military areas subject to very strict control. The argument apparently is that the improvement was really due to the removal of vast numbers of men for military service and to the general preoccupation of the whole nation in the business of making war. But when all .has been said very few disinterested people can refuse to believe that our fortunate experiences during the War were due in by far their greatest part to the strict control of the liquor trade. We simply must not look back ' • we must not take away our hand from the plough. If Mr. Lloyd George receives enough support from Labour in its changed mood he will no doubt be persuaded again to bring out his scheme for nationalization. Incidentally, it would give pleasure to those who wish to see nationalization attempted in at least one trade. We heartily agree with Mr. Bramley, the assistant secretary of the Parliamentary Committee of the Trade Union Congress, who says in the letter we print elsewhere that Prohibition is regarded with aversion by the workers. Prohibition must come if it ever comes—and we do not think it will—by consent. The people must impose it on themselves as the American people haire done. It must not be imposed upon them. For our part we think the tendency of mankind to resort to some kind of sedative is almost unconquerable. If men are forbidden one thing they will try another. Even in America where Prohibition is self-imposed every one is now talking of the ways in which Prohibition may be dodged—for example, by making home-made wine as used to be done in former days. If some one buys a hundredweight or two of grapes who could prevent him from fermenting theni and making, behind his own walls, a liquor that might not be delicate but would at least be highlyintoxicating ? Excisemen cannot be everywhere. Mr hen we pleaded for Prohibition during the War we pleaded for it solely as a temporary war-winning measure. We do not believe and never have • believed that Pro hibition would normally be possible in this country. What we do believe is that the State ought to own the whole liquor trade and thus prevent private persons from having an interest in pushing the sale of a poison—whatever may be said of drink in moderate quantities drink in excess is admittedly a poison. Now look at what has actually happened. By their policy in regard to drink in the past successive Governments have created a huge monopoly. They have said in effect to the distillers, the brewers, and the publicans : " We will tax you so highly for the purpose of getting a good revenue out of the Trade that we will make it impossible for you to derive satisfactory profits from your business unless you sell drink in excess." The vast number of public-houses in Great Britain is sufficient evidence of the great competition—of the struggle to make profits by pushing sales. The successful publican is bound to be a competent salesman ; he is bound to encourage a man who has already had enough to drink more or Ms publichouse will not survive. In this competition the sale of drink has been pressed as no other commodity has been pressed. On a walking tour in a remote district you may find it difficult to replace a bootlace or a pair of braces, but you will never be far from drink, even on the top of a mountain. As the State has fully recognized vested interests in the liquor trade and vast numbers of respectable people have their money invested in it the State ought, of course, to pay adequate compensation when making itself the owner. No sophistry, no technical argument, can relieve it of the obligation.
Once the State was owner the liquor problem would be in an incomparably better position. The taps from which the liquor flows could be turned on and off as the public themselves desired. In a particular district the majority of the electors would say that they had no wish to have any public-houses at all. The State, for its part, would keep its hand on the central tap ready to modify the flow for the good of the nation. It might turn off the tap entirely during a General Election. It might cause local taps to be turned off during strikes or where there had been riots or partly or wholly on market days. Wherever and however they liked the Government could control the amount of drink consumed without having it said, as can be said now, that they are depriving investors in the drink companies of their means of living. It will be contended, of course, that all this would amount to a great loss of revenue to the State, which could not afford that loss. But the objection answers itself. This is one of those many aspects of the drink question which make it a question apart—a question in which the ordinary considerations about nationalization do not apply. If the revenue from drink under State ownership should go down, as it very likely would, there would be a great physical and moral gain to the nation. And there would be more than that—there would be a financial gain in another form, for the money saved upon drink would be spent upon the necessary and the much more helpful Commodities of life.
There is another objection to the nationalization of drink which answers itself. It is frequently said that the new large department of State employees .would exercise constant pressure upon the Government and upon politics. But if the employees under the State-owned drink trade forced the Government continually to give them higher wages surely the result would be exactly what the members of the United Kingdom Alliance, who are fond of using the argument, would desire. The higher wages rose the more the price of drink would go up, and the less would be drunk. Similarly, the United Kingdom Alliance says that the Trade is so deadly a business that the Government ought not to touch it with the tips of their fingers. But the simple fact is that the 6overntnent long ago grasped the TrAde with both hands. Instead of modifying the mtmopoly they exalted it into an absolute tiling, making it a rich Bon i& of revenue. The political influence of a State-owned drink trade could not possibly be greater than that which the Trade wields, and is necessarily forced to wield, as things area On the one side you have fanatics attacking the great monopoly; on the other side you have the private owners and the myriads of investors-veryrightly and-properly defend-ing their rights. The result is a " pull devil, pull baker" rtruggle in every election, and always in Parliament. Indeed, everywhere the struggle is unceasing. We see it going on daily in the newspapers, in advertisements, in articles, and in letters. Let the truth be told. It may sound brutal, but we fear that cannot be avoided. After more than sixty years of labour the United Kingdom Alliance which' works for Prohibition has brought -the country no nearer to that goal. It has estranged a great many people, and so far as we can judge is losing ground. Whatis the use of going on crying for the moon ? If ever there was an illustration of " the best " being the, enemy of " the good " this is one. The fanatics have never really faced the inevitable question of compensation. Allusion to the United States leads us nowhere, for no vested interest in-drink has 'ever been recognized in America as it undoubtedly has been recognized here. To sum up, the Trade is much too dangerous to be left in private hands, particularly in the years of hard living and hard `wOrk that lie before us. Though the Trade could have been bought' out on much more advantageous terms during the War, it can still be bought out with every advantage to the nation, and the sooner the better. The growing support of Labour should make all the difference to the 'Prime Minister. This is one of the experiments in nationalization which he can make with complete confidenee and with the certainty of success.
Previous page
