It is little wonder that the licensed trade finds itself in a state of confusion over its future in the current political and legal climate.
The new Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, announces a review of the "24-hour" legislation, even though it was going to happen anyway. Successive reports conflict on whether the new laws have helped or hindered a "better drinking culture", whatever that may be. One set of figures puts drink-related offences at a higher level: the Department for Culture, Media & Sport (DCMS) suggests that things have got better overall.
Meanwhile, some parts of the medical profession want alcohol to be made more expensive, or licensing laws to be tightened up again to re-introduce controls on consumption. It seems pubs are in the forefront of yet another political struggle, following hard on the heels of the smoking ban, the effect of which is yet to be fully evaluated.
I am reminded of Ann Widdecombe's famous pronouncement some years ago that the then Home Secretary, Michael Howard, had "something of the night about him". Try as he might, Howard never shook off her remark, remaining forever cloaked in a Hammer horror image, as someone who might bite your neck - metaphorically speaking, of course.
The current Home Office contingent may well be regarded by licensees as having a similar nocturnal feel. They have been instrumental in several initiatives aimed at controlling and attacking the licensed trade, principal among which has been the Alcohol Misuse Enforcement Campaign (Amec) and legislative change resulting in additions to the Licensing Act to punish repeat underage sales.
The result has been acceptance that it is legitimate to impose enormous financial penalties by depriving traders of considerable income for up to 28 days - far more, in real terms, than the highest fine to date.
The overall impression, possibly strengthened by changes in government leadership, is that alcohol is a matter of control and constraint, best suited to a department exercising that function elsewhere. Certainly some senior figures are asking why licensing was moved from the Home Office in the first place.
I was not alone at the time in questioning why two such potentially troublesome issues as alcohol and gambling were being transferred to a much more minor government department, unless it was an attempt by the then prime minister to bolster a friend's remit. There were, to my mind, few practical reasons, as we were already in the middle of legislative change, with the crucial White Paper being issued by the Home Office before the switch actually took place.
I am not sure anyone believes the change itself has been beneficial. Initial views were that there would be a more relaxed, lenient approach to the trade. But the legislation was conceived in the Temple of Darkness. It was undoubtedly about more control, rather than true relaxation of the licensing laws. If, at this stage, government reneges on its 24-hour commitment (unreal and unrealistic as it has always been), the licensed trade will have gained no advantage at all from the changes.
The Home Office has demonstrated clearly that it wants a hand in licensing controls. It has illustrated an intention to place alcohol misuse at the forefront of policy, giving it a legitimate platform to override the DCMS at every turn. It would not be surprising if Gordon moved the chairs again.