TWO big flops caught my eye last week. Or should that be three? The first was the abysmal reviews for the new stage musical of Gone With The Wind, which must have left Scarlett O'Hara's words "I guess I've done murder" ringing shamefully in director Sir Trevor Nunn's ears.
The second was Thursday's equally dramatic defeat of the banks in a major court battle with the Office of Fair Trading over bank charges. But that didn't make it a good week for the watchdog.
The previous day OFT chief executive John Fingleton was
forced to apologise to the supermarket chain Morrisons and pay out £100,000 to settle a defamation complaint in the long-running row about the fixing of milk prices. Maybe that's a plop rather than a flop. But then, as Scarlett O'Hara always said: "Tomorrow is another day." Which I am sure is what the banks are telling themselves right now.
For those who have been following the long-running bank charges saga, which leaves Margaret Mitchell's 1,000-page history of the destruction of the Old South looking like a quick read, the court's decision marks a sensational victory for consumers. Or does it?
It certainly brings nearer the day when hundreds of thousands of account holders who are claiming back charges on unauthorised overdrafts get their money back. Well, fiddlededee.
But we are not there yet. Not by a mile. The case was merely to establish whether the OFT has jurisdiction in this area.
The court ruled that it did and that bank charges are covered by the fairness laws, which opens the way for compensation for customers who believe they have been hit by exorbitant bills. Thousands are now claiming back up to six years' worth of charges.
These claims have been frozen pending the outcome of the litigation between the OFT and the banks. But last week's court case was just the first step. The judge issued a 450-page judgment which the banks are now subjecting to the same kind of tight scrutiny as Mammy expended on Scarlett's corsets.
I'm guessing there will be a great deal of huffing and puffing, and more delays and possible appeals, before the OFT gets anywhere near a fairness ruling. The whole thing could drag on for years yet.
Scottish courts haven't issued a blanket freeze on complaints as they have in England, so if you believe the bank owes you money but you're getting no joy, you may be able to expedite compensation.
But I've always been more Clark Gable than Vivien Leigh when it came to this particular battle. Like Rhett Butler, I've never quite believed in the cause and suspect most of us will be worse off when the dust settles. Most of us run our current accounts entirely free, and indeed no one has to pay charges if they manage their affairs sensibly.
The banks have wanted to end free banking for years and introduce compulsory fees for all. My big fear is that this campaign gives them the justification they have craved.
To my mind, the campaigners, rather than sporting the colours of Yankees fighting for justice, have taken on the uniform of the Confederates. Their courageous talk and appetite for battle have played right into the enemy's hands.
So, to echo Rhett's warning to Scarlett: "Take a good look, my dear. It's a historic moment. You can tell your grandchildren how you watched the Old South disappear one night."
As with the Old South, so with banking. The halcyon days of cheap credit and free current accounts are over. Those of us who never or rarely pay charges may soon wake up to hefty fees on our accounts.
By that time, it will be far too late to cry out in protest: "Frankly I DO give a damn." (Sorry, I couldn't resist it.)
Keeping it in the familyTHE row over MPs' expenses rolls on, as it should until voters are confident that parliamentarians have stopped milking the system.
Apparently, more than 100 MPs employ family members on expense accounts. We cannot allow democracy to be reduced to a family business, with all the potential for abuse.
That's not to say your son, daughter or spouse may not be the best person for the job. But there should be an open application process with no place for nepotism.
I worry that MPs' remuneration, so heavily reliant on expense claims rather than salary, colours their thinking on tax and benefits.
Increasing taxes doesn't hit them anything like as hard as it does the rest of us, or indeed as clawing back their expense accounts would.
If I were an MP, I don't think I could vote for scrapping the 10p band and still look constituents earning less than around £19,000 in the eye, knowing they are paying for my family's comfortable existence.
The full article contains 826 words and appears in Scotland On Sunday newspaper.
