ON the surface at least, the government's thinking on the drinking culture appears to be very muddled. Last week, ministers unveiled plans for a crackdown on binge drinking, this week the government continues to drive through plans which would allow 24 hour drinking in pubs.

These policies are not exactly joining up very well. As we pointed out last week, the binge drinking initiative is certainly welcome with its aims to tackle alcohol-related disorder in town and city centres and a clampdown on irresponsible promotions by the drinks industry.

But then to go ahead with plans to change drinking laws to allow 24 hour opening appears to be unleashing the very demon the government was last week anxious to contain.

The publication of draft guidance for licensing authorities is a long time coming and, indeed, is still at least 16 months away from becoming law, bearing in mind that the House of Lords turfed it out at the last attempt in January last year.

One of its cornerstone proposals is to shift the responsibility for granting licences from magistrates to council authorities, but there is lack of clarity about how much control under the legislation local authorities will actually have.

This week Richmond council leader Tony Arbour has written to Tony Blair, saying he believes that under the new legislation there will be an increase in levels of noise and anti-social behaviour and he is calling on the government to reconsider its strategy.

The flip side of the argument says that elsewhere in Europe, 24-hour opening presents few problems and that 24-hour opening in this country will reduce alcohol-fuelled incidents because not everyone will be leaving the pubs at the same time.

That may be fine for some town centre pubs, but clearly it is a law fraught with problems for residential communities and their pubs.

As with the binge-drinking report, the licensing plans have a thread of common sense running through them, but they also contain a worrying number of holes.

Having local authorities controlling licensing certainly makes a lot of sense, because they are in the front line of the drinking culture in their particular communities.

Two things need some clarification, however. One concerns the cost. It would be entirely wrong for the added financial burden of managing the licensing to be shifted from its current arena to that of the local authority - and consequently the council tax payer - without an increase in grants.

Secondly, local authorities must not be ham-strung by ill thought-out blanket legislation which gives them little or no room to apply licensing restrictions which are pertinent to their own areas.

That said, it does seem as though the government is having problems with right and left hands. It seems a nonsense that the report on binge drinking and the plans for licensing seem contradictory when a joint strategy would have been far more effective.

The government has fallen into the trap drinkers are often told to avoid. Mixing your policies produces a heady cocktail which muddles the thinking.