Temperance and the working class

Prompted by the exhibition, Alcohol Alert invited Derek Rutherford, Chairman of the Institute of Alcohol Studies and a lifetime temperance advocate, to suggest what lessons the modern alcohol control field can learn from the temperance movement

It is difficult today to appreciate and understand the powerful sentiment that existed for temperance and the force it was in the latter part of the nineteenth and early part of the twentieth century. In 1849 Richard Cobden wrote, “The Temperance Cause really lies at the root of all social and political progression in this country… The moral force of the masses lies in the Temperance Movement, and I confess I have no faith in anything apart from that movement for the elevation of the working classes.” Leaders of working class organizations whole heartedly embraced temperance.

Thomas Burt, who founded the Northumberland Miners’ Association, was a keen advocate and worker for the temperance cause. In 1847 he became a member of parliament and in 1892 Gladstone appointed him Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade. Before he retired from Parliament in 1918 he had become Father of the House of Commons. Speaking at the TUC Congress in 1905, Burt stated, “I regard the temperance question as one of the greatest social topics of the time. If democracy is to have a great future, one of the things it will have to do will be, individually and collectively to grapple with the drink problem.”

Keir Hardie, the founder of the Labour Party, had, at 17, joined IOGT – a leading international temperance organization. He became the leader of its local group and quadrupled its membership. It is of note that the IOGT movement established in Scotland in 1869 had, by 1900, recruited 1.2 million members. Keir Hardie, as leader of the Labour group in the House of Commons in 1906, had his members sign a pledge to abstain from alcohol whilst they were on business in the House. Hardie’s credo was: “Each socialist is by his creed under moral obligation to find his greatest pleasure in seeking the happiness and good of others. The man who can take a glass of beer or let it alone is under moral obligation for the sake of the weaker brother who cannot do so, to let it alone. To me, this matter is one of serious moment”.

By the 1930’s the endemic drink problem of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries had drastically diminished and a period of sobriety had been established. The Hulton Readership Survey estimated that 40% of the population were abstainers and that young people aged 16 to 25 were most likely to abstain.

The Report of the Royal Commission on Licensing, England and Wales, 1929-31 noted that there had been a marked change in public attitude towards drunkenness and a distinct advance in sobriety, especially among young people. Factors contributing to this success were: the advocacy of temperance workers, the spread of education, counterattractions to drinking, reduction of licences, restriction of hours and the heavy increase in excise duties. Beer had more than doubled in price and the cost of spirits increased three and four times. The report states: “There can be no doubt that these large increases in price..…have imposed a strong check on the consumption of liquor and contributed substantially to the diminution of insobriety.”

Confirmation of the success of temperance advocacy may be seen in the Ministry of Health’s refusal to the request of Dr Max Glatt to attend a WHO conference on Alcoholism in Copenhagen in 1951. The Ministry considered that there was no alcoholism in England. This rather complacent attitude ignored the effect which would result from a lack of control over the marketing strategies of the drinks industry.

In 1933, Sir Edgar Saunders, Director of the Brewers Society, unveiled the brewers’ plans. His words were ominous: “Unless you can attract the younger generation to take the place of older men, there is no doubt that we shall have to face a steadily falling consumption of beer. That is a very serious matter for an industry of this sort…unless we can attract and secure the younger customers who will become the mainstay of the public house…. If we begin advertising in the press, we shall see that the continuation of our advertising is contingent upon the fact that we get editorial support as well in the same papers. In that way it is wonderful how you can educate public opinion, generally without making it too obvious that there is a publicity campaign behind it at all…We want to get the beer drinking habit instilled into thousands, almost millions, of young men who do not at present know the taste of beer,”

The results of the Drinks Industry marketing and sponsorship strategies are clearly seen. By the 1980s, young people had become the heaviest drinkers in the population. So, over the past 150 years, we have come full circle in the nation’s drinking habits.

What lessons can modern alcohol control advocates learn from their predecessors?

Beware of colluding with the Drinks Industry and their acolytes, believing you can make them more socially responsible. They will not promote effective alcohol policies but will actively work against them, hindering their implementation. The Scotch Whisky Association (SWA) states that their origins: “lie in the defence of the industry from what were seen as excessive and unfair taxes imposed by the temperance-friendly Chancellor, Lloyd George.”

At present they are heavily engaged in lobbying against the Scottish Government’s proposal to introduce minimum unit price. One hundred years later a leopard doesn’t change its spots. SWA do not accept a level playing field for health advocates, since they have challenged Alcohol Focus Scotland’s right to defend minimum price in the Court of Sessions, Edinburgh. The court has ruled that Alcohol Focus Scotland can give evidence in support of the Scottish Government’s legislation on minimum price.

When Alcohol Policy and the Public Good was produced to support the WHO Europe Alcohol Action Plan, the Portman Group attempted to offer £2000 each for alcohol researchers to rubbish the report with the promise to protect their anonymity.

The temperance movement was successful in creating a people’s movement, winning their hearts and minds. So far, modern advocates have not achieved this.

Encouraging a political will. There may be signs that this is on the way to being achieved. The recent excellent report on alcohol by the Select Committee on Health is certainly an encouragement and an increasing number of MPs are taking an interest in the issue. It may be that the transfer of responsibility for alcohol licensing from magistrates to local authorities will draw local councillors’ attention to problems faced by their electors with the social consequences of alcohol use, such as antisocial behaviour, thus recognising the need for policy action both at local and national level.

Temperance advocates emphasized the social problems and the impact on third parties. Modern advocates have tended to emphasise the health consequences and have not placed sufficient emphasis on the impact of alcohol on innocent victims. Recently, advocates have suddenly realized the need to place some emphasis on ‘passive drinking’, taking their cue from successful tobacco advocacy. Concern over the impact on the wellbeing of the family, interpersonal violence and the impact on children and poverty drove the commitment of temperance advocates.

The temperance movement created a network of groups active in almost all the major towns and counties. Trades Unions had their temperance sections.

The importance of coalition building with other civil society groups was seen. Examples of this today are the Alcohol and Health Alliance and the Open All Hours group established by the IAS to bring civil society groups together over the implementation of 24 hour drinking.