Having just spent five apoplectic hours trying to drive home, predominately gridlocked on the M25, I've had time to consider whether the congestion charge might have helped to reduce or alleviate todays congestion.

It all started this morning at 6:30am when a truck overturned on the anti-clockwise stretch of the M25 at junction 9. This didn't affect me as I was travelling clockwise. However, to my surprise, eleven hours later, in the return  rush hour, two lanes of the M25 are still closed. Traffic is queuing from junction 14 at Heathrow.

Earlier, on my route in to work, going the opposite direction via the M25, A40 and North Circular I am delayed on the A40. The reason for this delay, of about forty minutes, is because a road crew are sweeping the central reservation and there is a lane closed. There is also a large stretch, over a mile, which is still coned off, even though the work is completed.

The traffic alerts I hear all day, having spent close to seven hours behind the wheel, are common to the traffic alerts I hear almost every day. These cite, in no particular order, road works, traffic lights out, collapsed manhole, broken down car, traffic accident and onlookers as the reasons for congestion. These create traffic black spots, and they will occur even if there is a congestion charge.

We're simply not clearing these issues quick enough, reopening lanes to get the traffic moving or deploying traffic police to failed traffic signals. Two lanes closed on the M25 for eleven hours is wrong, and I struggle to understand why the tax payer should be penalised for this through a congestion tax when the overall process of traffic management isn't effective.

With a charge of £1.30 per mile, the daily cost to me, using both the M25 and the North Circular, would be £104, equating to £520 per week or a staggering £24,000 per year on congestion charges. In order to pay the congestion charge I would need to earn at least £30,000 per annum as I also have to pay the PAYE and national insurance. Don't forget, at this stage I haven't even started paying any of my other bills such as mortgage  payments, food, utility bills etc etc.............

I am intrigued by the contrast between Chancellor Gordon Browns Pre Budget and the Irish Budget announced by Irelands Finance Minister, Brian Cowen. On the one hand we have an incredibly pro business budget which is bound to encourage entrepreneurs, small business and equity investment in the Irish economy. 

By comparison in the UK small business and entrepreneurs are continuing to be snuffed out. Managed service companies (MCS's) for instance, are deemed to only "disguise employment" and are subject to increased measures in the Pre-Budget announcement. This includes enabling the recovery of "outstanding" tax and NI contributions from the companies who engaged the MCS. An MCS could be a professional who has decided to set up a consultancy practice. This is a "tax motivated incorporation" rather than entrepreneurship and small business development vital for UK economic growth, i.e. the person isn't really a consultant she's a deemed employee.

It is actually becoming prohibitive to start a business in the UK to the point  where, economically, you are actually better off staying in full time employment. Why would you want to take on the financial risk within a burdensome, complicated tax framework where your government assume the worst about you, and in any case you can be waiting up to six months for VAT registration without any guidance about accounting for VAT in that period.

What's the alternative, well moving your business out of the UK and incorporating it in Ireland where small business and entrepreneurs can be assured of support is looking a lot more attractive.