Just when you think that people are listening and may be understanding your concerns, the whole thing is again thrown into disarray.
I refer of course to the vexed issue of red tape and regulation.
With the recent B2B survey suggesting two-thirds of West Midland SMEs struggling, it seems our concerns are so badly understood we shall never be able to make any concrete progress.
All business organisations are united in calling for substantial reduction in red tape and regulation which is making our businesses uncompetitive, as well as costing the economy somewhere between £40 million and £60 million depending on which report you read.
This cost is ultimately passed onto everyone in higher prices in the shops, as well as reducing our ability to compete on a 'level playing field' against our competitors.
We have also been calling for full regulatory impact assessments to be carried out before and after any new regulations are imposed.
The Government has started a consultation exercise and is holding meetings across the country with business, as well as asking its' MP's, to request ideas on how to cut red tape and improve efficiency.
This is admirable, yet time and time again it is not necessarily a specific regulation (although there are many specific idiosyncrasies), but the cumulative effect of regulation together with the updates to previous regulation, and the time needed to be spent to effectively cope with it which is the major issue.
No one can argue for instance that sensible Health and Safety regulation is not a good thing, or that legislation protecting consumers from rogue traders should not to be welcomed, yet in the last few weeks we have seen the arrival of more and more red tape and regulation that is going to adversely affect every single business in our region.
Often it is the lack of uniform enforcement which creates an even greater problem.
It is ironic that our very own civil servants who are supposed to be helping our businesses on the one hand, have another group that 'gold plates' everything with the other.
One would also hope that to help businesses try and comply there would not only be information available, but regulators who would be able to advise and assist. Not so!
It beggars belief that we shall ever be able to ensure that regulation is not only sensible, but that it does not adversely impact against businesses.
Surely it is not too much to ask that the regulators should consult business at the outset rather than going through the motions and then 'box ticking' as an exercise to say they have 'consulted'.
I believe we have reached a stage where at the very least there should now be a counter duty. It should be imposed on regulators to ensure they send all businesses affected full information in a simple format, full guidance, and an impact assessment well before implementation. Or maybe that is going too far?
* Mike Cherry is West Midlands Policy Unit Chairman for the federation of Small Businesses