The idea was to give districts the chance to vote on whether all or some of the liquor licences in that district should be abolished. The temperance twats saw this as a way of gradually turning the whole country dry. But it was all based on an illusion.
Temperance wankers had fallen for their own propaganda. They'd managed to persuade themselves that licensed premises were imposed on the working classes and, given the chance they'd willingly free themselves from them. Obviously this was total bollocks. If it had been true, the pubs would have been empty.
From this article it's clear that temperance lunatics employed some pretty dodgy tactics.
"The Liquor Traffic (Local Control) BillOf course, the temperance madmen would have loved to see everyone in the liquor trade bankrupted. They didn't give a fuck about how many livelihoods they would destroy, nor that they would be robbing working men and women of one of their few pleasures. Like all fanatics, they weren't concerned about what sacrifices others would have to endure as long as they achieved their insane goals.
Out of parliament
THE opposition to the Local Veto proposals of the present Government, which has been very strongly marked from the first, is rapidly increasing in all parts of the Kingdom, and in many unexpected quarters. Of course it went without saying that these proposals would meet with the determined hostility of all branches of the liquor trade, but it could hardly have been anticipated that so many Radical organisations would express such emphatic disapproval as they have. Especially is this the case in the Metropolitan districts.
It may be of some interest to our readers if we reproduce here a few facts relating to the licensed victual lers’ trade in London. The capital invested, according to Mr. Charles Walker, the Chairman of the Central Board of the Licensed Victuallers’ Protection Society of the Metropolis, is £60,000,000. There are 14,000 licence holders, and if the Veto on the issue of licences was put in operation it would throw 100,000 people out of employment. The licence duties paid amount to between £50,000 and £60,000, which sum is passed to the London County Council for the relief of taxation. The leases are long, and when originally granted are seldom for less than fifty years. Some are for 100 years, and others even longer than that. These leases are very valuable, and bring large sums in the open market, £20,000 or £30,000 being common prices to pay for publichouse businesses, and houses have been known to change hands for as much as £100,000. The tied-house system does not prevail to any-great extent, but the brewers and the distillers advance loans to the lessees, and a man with £2,000 or £3,000 — and perhaps even less sometimes — would be able to purchase a business which cost, it might be, £20,000 or £30,000: the difference between what the tenant owns and what he pays remaining as a loan on the lease, &c., which are mortgaged to the brewer and distiller. If the Liquor Traffic (Local Control) Bill passed and came into operation throughout London, 75 per cent. of the publicans would have to pass through the Bankruptcy Court, and be irretrievably ruined, for they would be saddled with a load of debt they could never repay. Money to the tune of about £45,000,000 would be simply thrown away in London alone. It must not be supposed that this enormous loss would fall wholly upon the shoulders of the licensed victuallers, for they are financed by the brewers and distillers. It is safe to say that many more people would be seriously injured by the Bill than could by any possibility receive benefit from it.
The Brewers' Guardian 1893, pages 105 - 106.
In the end, the local veto must have been a huge disappointment to temperance idiots. When a scheme was introduced in Scotland after WW I, it wasn't met the expected enthusiasm of the working classes. Only a few, mostly well-heeled, districts opted for the veto. And as new votes were held in later years, the number of districts suppressing the liquor trade tended to decline rather than increase.