THE TRUE SUBJECT FOR NATIONALIZATION.
WHERE do the general considerations as to the Liquor Problem set forth by us last week point ? In our opinion, they point directly to Nationalization of the whole Liquor Trade, production and sale. Such Nationalization will not mean Prohibition, or at any rate will never mean Prohibition unless the majority of the people of this country are determined to have it, in which case it is of course inevitable. It will, however, enable us to exercise control, and to exercise it in the best possible way. If the taps out of which the beer and the whisky run belong to the nation, it can, in the matter of locality or of hours, turn them on or off just as it likes. It is complete master in its own house. If it finds that there are certain places where a great majority of the people, say a two-thirds majority, do not want public-houses at all, but would much rather be without them, in these localities there need be no sale of intoxicants. Again, if it is found that on certain occasions and at particular hours, say on election days, during strikes, or between certain hours on market days, it is better to forbid all drinking, such temporary prohibition can be secured by the action of the State without any fuss and without incurring the complaint—one with which per se we have the greatest sympathy—that you are taking the bread out of some unfortunate man's mouth and causing misery and privation to his family. If the State owns the Liquor Trade, both as regards sale and production, the State can make the Trade fit the social and moral needs of the nation exactly.
Nationalization gets rid of the danger of destroying, as Prohibition would do, the livelihood of a large number of people who have invested their money in brewery shares. You can without great difficulty find alternative employment for Publicans' and Brewers' hands," but not for the ruined shareholders in a prohibited Brewery. Next note how the Trade is almost forced to corrupt, or at any rate to " influence," our politics in self-defence. Come what may, there will always be a strong Temperance, not to say a strong Prohibition, party in this country. But this means, and cannot help meaning, a party whose special object is to destroy the business of the manu-:facturers and sellers of intoxicants. But this again means that there is a party engaged in putting in the gravest danger the incomes of a very large number of people, and also of the great corporate moneyed interests. Naturally enough from its point of view, the Trade imitates the Temperance Party, and tries to get by one way or another power over the politicians in order that the Trade may be protected from what those who run it call the unfair attacks of the fanatics. The only way, however, in which the Trade can protect itself is by large and more or less secret gifts to party funds, and by exerting influence in the Press, often owing to a lavish use of advertisements. In other words, to put it quite plainly, the Trade, in order to prevent its destruction has to obtain indirect influence over Parliament by means of " tied " Members and " tied " Groups, and also over the Press in matters that concern its business interests. Who can possibly say that this is desirable ? Yet, unfortunate and undesirable as is the fact, it is most unfair to lay the blame upon the Brewers and DistiPers. It is the nation as a whole which must bear the blame because, as we have already said, it has so mishandled the sale of intoxicants—first by creating a most valuable monopoly, then by highly taxing that monopoly, and finally by allowing private profit to be made by those who are willing to work hard enough not only to pay the State's share of the monopoly but also to reap a good profit for themselves. If we buy out the Trade, and nationalize the product and sale of all intoxicants, we shall not merely be able to make regulations under which the sale will do the very minimum of public injury ; we shall also free our political and public life from very unfortunate influences, influences for which the Trade, however, as we have shown, cannot fairly be blamed. In all walks of life men who are struck will, and indeed must, hit back. " This ill-tempered brute when attacked defends itself with ferocity."
In these circumstances we appeal to the Prime Minister to carry out the policy which he has already told us both by word and deed has his approval. It may be remembered that Mr. Lloyd George in 191.<5 took the preliminary 'tops towards State Purchase of the Trade, and it was only because he could not get his colleagues to agree with him that the transaction did not take place. No one can say that he took the matter up lightly, or that he has since thought better of it or changed his mind, or seen the error of his ways. Only a fortnight ago the Observer published an anthology of the Prime Minister's statements in regard to the Liquor Trade, which we may quote here. They are as follows :— " Drina is doing much more damage in the war than all the German submarines put together,' " Nothing but root-and-branch methods will be of the slightest avail in dealing with this evil."—Mr. Lloyd George, February 28th, 1916.
" We are fighting against Germany, Austria, and Drink, and as far as I can see the greatest of these three deadly foes is Drink."—Mr. Lloyd George, March 29th, 1915.
" If nothing were done now to acquire complete and absolute control over the Trade, he feared that when demobilization came there would be an irresistible demand to put the Trade back practically where it had been before. That would be a national disaster. He personally wanted the strong hand of the State to be there instead of a powerful interest which had already beaten them in the past."—Mr. Lloyd George, March 29th,1917.
" What we could afford before the war we certainly cannot afford after the war, and one of the things we cannot afford is -a drink bill of £160,000,000 a year."—Mr. Lloyd George.
" A proper adaptation to peace conditions of the experience wild' during the war we have gained in regard to the traffic In drink."—Joint manifesto of Mr. Lloyd George and Mr. Bona). Law, November, 1918, We say without hesitation that these quotations show Mr Lloyd George to adopt almost exactly the view which we adopt in regard to Purchase. Has he the courage to carry it promptly and thoroughly into practice ? If he has, he will lay us all under a political obligation. He failed miserably to do it during the war ; but he may to some extent excuse himself by saying that the task was boo difficult, and that he found to attempt it might interfere with the prosecution of the war. Surely he cannot say so now. Unless we are very much mistaken, he knows as well as we do that Purchase by the State would not hinder but help to solve the terrible economic difficulties that have come upon us since the Peace. There is a great deal, to be said against the nationalization of any ordinary productive industry, because nationalization is sure to lower production and consumption. But if the Trade is bought out at a fair price, as of course it ought to be, and will be when the time comes,. who could be found to say that reduction in the production and consumption of intoxicants would be anything but a national advantage ? Even if the revenue were to fall off, the effect on the nation would be one not of loss but of gain. But suppose, by the limitation of supplies and the elimination of the stimulus to drink, the Drink Bill were cut down, as it easily might be, from £260,000,000 to £l00,000,000 or even £160,000,000, we should have gained enormously not merely morally and socially but financially. The money thus released, as it were, from the clutches of Alcohol would. spread, a beneficent flood, over the nation. Some part, nay, a good part, would be saved, and so help the nation in its great financial needs. Another part would go in increased consumption of food, clothing, and housing, and so help, and help enormously, to reconstruct society. Instead of wasting our money in brewing-vats and whiskystills, in brewery and distillery advertisements, and in extra barmaids' and potmen's wages, and instead of slowing down our physical and mental energies by huge loses of sedatives, we should be growing more corn and more oats, and finding it far easier to feed our cows and our chickens. At the same time, in moderation and under proper conditions, men would always be able to get their beer or other favourite sedative, and would therefore have no sense of grievance. The only difference would be that there would not be nearly so many publichouses to choose from (or shall we say to be tempted by ?), and there would also be absolutely no incitement, direct or indirect, open or covert, to the consumption of intoxicants. When the salesman with no interest in the sale of intoxicants has to decide " Has that man had enough liquor or has he not ? " the benefit of the doubt will always go on the side of decency and temperance. Now it is only too apt to go on the side of drunkenness and social disgrace. " The invitation to the Bar " is a tune which should be banished from the repertoire of the National Orchestra.
If, then, Mr. Lloyd George wants to help the nation, and incidentally to throw a sop to the nationalizers, let him begin with the Liquor Trade. As we have said, if he makes a business failure, no one will blame him, and the nation will actually gain economically. We know of no other trade in which he could make his experiment with such perfect safety.
Previous page
