The tiny South Pacific island of Samoa (pop 177,000 and just 332km of paved roads) is about to switch from driving on the right side of the road to the left. Not only is this the first country to switch sides in many years (Yemen, 1977, seems to be the most recent) but it is also the first in living memory to switch to the British side rather than the American side.

And therein lies the reason for the changeover: apparently the government wants to discourage the import of American gas-guzzlers and encourage ex-pat Samoans in left-hand driving Australia and New Zealand to send back home more economical second-hand cars. Seems like a challenging way to protect the environment.

It brings to mind a press trip made by our editor to Hong Kong in 1996, some 18 months before the handover to China. At a meeting with a senior official from the Hong Kong tourism authority, one reporter asked whether China (right-hand drive) would likely force Hong Kong (left-hand drive) to switch. The official thought for a minute and then concluded that this wouldn't exactly be China's first priority - but his choice of words caused much merriment: "It won't happen overnight," he said...

Apologies for the radio silence on this blog over the last few weeks - a combination of summer holidays, it being too hot to blog, too rainy to blog or too busy to blog because it always feels like we're the only ones who actually have to do any work in August.

Oh, and our editor resigned, so that's created a bit of a kerfuffle to sort out. Took him 12 years, but he's finally going to pastures new, to be succeeded by deputy editor Melanie Stern. Details available by clicking this link.

So as Financial Director rushes headlong into its 25th anniversary issue - with Andy Sawers having been responsible for almost half of that - expect the start of the title's next quarter century to see a few changes...

This could be the ultimate 'green shoots' story. As we all try to get out of debt, I can now tell you that I have, after six months, finally repaid my Nectar loyalty points overdraft.

Eh? Here's what happened. Last Christmas, Mrs Shareholdervalues was doing all the festive food shopping at Sainsbury's. I arrived a bit later and started getting in all the festive booze. Mrs Shareholdervalues was loading up her shopping and paying at one till, while the master of the house was going through another till with all the drink.

Both of us had big bills, as you might expect, if only because we planned on doing a lot of entertaining over the holidays (and not because we eat and drink a lot ourselves, you understand). Unbeknownst to each other, we both whipped out our Nectar cards (which run off the same account) and asked for the full credit balance - some 5500 points, worth £55 - to be taken off our shopping bills.

The computer couldn't handle two near-simultaneous transactions drawing down the full balance - and allowed them both to go through! Not until we got home did we realise that we'd struck a bargain.

Fortunately, the next time we went to Sainsbury's and presented a Nectar card, we weren't arrested for committing a heinous computer crime. Instead, our till receipt showed a balance of minus 5500 points.

And so, for the last six months, every point we've earned has gone straight into repaying what was, in effect, a £55, interest-free, unauthorised overdraft.

Colleagues suggested that this had the makings of a modern-day Great Train Robbery, if you could upscale it. Not so sure. Do you know how much money you have to spend at Sainsbury's in order to earn 5500 points in the first place? There must be cheaper ways to commit a crime.

The Queen's Birthday Honours list contained the usual assortment of unsung community stalwarts, sporting heroes and treaders of the boards.

One gong, an OBE, goes to West Yorkshire Police assistant chief officer and director of finance Nigel Brook, so many congratulations to him from all at Financial Director on behalf of FDs everywhere.

In past years there's been a chunky representation from the financial services industry - a field of endeavour notable by its absence these days (despite the fact there must be someone out there who deserves royal recognition!). The nearest we get to a Square Mile honour is the one given to fashion designer Jeff Banks. Boom boom.

Today's Financial Times reports that derivatives brokers are getting annoyed with the interventions of the reinvigorated Financial Services Authority - so much so that Alexander Justham, director of the FSA's market division, retorted:

"This is where society wants us to be. You should do the right thing and if you don't you run the risk of having your head put on a spike."

The BBC says that Sir Alan Sugar is about to be offered a peerage in recognition of the role he is taking on as 'enterprise tsar' [sic].

As The Apprentice draws to a close on Sunday night, business 'reality show' TV junkies will be despondent and wondering where to get their weekly fix.

Here's a tip: tune in to Mary Queen of Charity Shops (Tuesdays, 9pm, BBC2). Forget about the ridiculous management games that a band of almost entirely obnoxious over-hyped contestants try to complete. We're talking real business with this show - even if it is the charity business.

Mary Portas is a retail expert, credited with great success at West End shop Harvey Nicks. In this series, she is trying to improve the fortunes of a 'Save the Children' charity shop in Orpington. Being a charity shop, it is almost entirely staffed by lovely 'old dear' volunteers, many of whom have worked there every Tuesday morning (or whatever) for years - even decades. As you might guess, they have heard of 'change' but aren't really in favour of it.

Here's a flavour of how bad things are: weekly takings per volunteer aren't £30 a head as one volunteer suggests. No, it's more like £12.50.

Then there's the ultimate supply chain horror: the tat that people 'generously' donate to shops such as this is largely useless - unwashed bras, sodden, mud-encrusted football boots, old trousers with holes in the crotch. Lovely stuff. Worse than useless, in fact, because the shop has to pay around £90 a week to have all this crap taken away. "We could pay for a part-time therapist for £90 a week," says one volunteer as she loads an industrial-sized rubbish bin with more 'donations'.

If you missed it, watch the first episode on BBC iPlayer (quickly, though, time's running out) and make sure you see the next episodes. You'll soon forget all about Sir Alan Sugar.

* Talking about Sir Alan Sugar, we hear today he's been appointed by Gordon Brown as an 'enterprise tsar'. Um, aren't the concepts of 'enterprise' and 'tsar' rather at odds with each other???

Today's Wall Street Journal Europe reports that the Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing by General Motors will result in it leaving the Dow Jones Industrial Average index - the best-known benchmark for Wall Street.

Bankruptcy disqualifies a company from being a constituent of the index - though the fact that GM's market capitalisation is now just 0.1% of the 30-share Dow's weighting won't help much, either.

GM, founded in 1908, has been a fixture of the index since 1925 (though the WSJE, which is owned by Dow Jones, says 1923), and, previously, popped in and out the index briefly during the Great War (but before the Yanks actually joined in).

Can't help wondering what Alfred Sloan would have made of this corporate giant's fall from grace...

Not only should you never make predictions, especially about the future, but you aren't always safe writing about the past, either.

In our latest cover story we listed as one of our green shoots the fact that van-maker LDV had withdrawn its application to go into administration as it was being rescued by Malaysian group Weststar.

Oops! Despite a £5m loan from the UK government, Weststar has changed its mind and LDV is applying once again to go into administration.

Let's keep this simple. There is no -- repeat, no -- need to reform the House of Commons rule book on expenses.

In other words, there is no -- repeat, no -- excuse for blaming the rules or the system for the abuse that has taken place.

There is only a requirement that MPs read the rules. Out loud. While standing in the naughty corner of their constituency offices in front of their unpaid volunteers. And after writing out a cheque to reimburse the taxpayer.

Why? Easy. Read what the rules actually say...

• Claims should be above reproach and must reflect actual usage of the resources being claimed.
• Claims must only be made for expenditure that it was necessary for a Member to incur to ensure that he or she could properly perform his or her parliamentary duties.
• Members must ensure that claims do not give rise to, or give the appearance of giving rise to, an improper personal financial benefit to themselves or anyone else.
• Members are committed to openness about what expenditure has been incurred and for what purposes.
• The requirement of ensuring value for money is central in claiming for accommodation, goods or services - Members should avoid purchases which could be seen as extravagant or luxurious.

This comes from the Commons Green Book. What could be clearer than this? Admittedly, the rules are about 70 pages long -- but you don't have to read beyond page 8 to take in the key principles above.

But because MPs aren't generally the smartest guys in the room, the guide gives a few helpful tips, in the form of self-examining questions. Things like...

• Is this purchase supporting me in carrying out my parliamentary duties? Anything which is done for personal benefit or for electioneering or for the direct support of a political party will not be part of a Member's parliamentary duties.
• Could the claim in any way damage the reputation of Parliament or its Members?
• How comfortable do I feel with the knowledge that my claim will be available to the public under Freedom of Information?

So here's a test for MPs who have fallen foul of these fairly basic principles: Are you crooked? Or just stupid?

And which of those two qualities best equips you to be a Member of Parliament?

Grrrrr!

Oh, one more thing: send in HMRC to decide whether the unreimbursed expenses claims that MPs think they're still entitled to count as taxable benefits or not. Let the taxman reach the parts that even the Daily Telegraph hasn't reached yet.

Latest news: HMRC may investigate "flipping" (read story)...