Cameron survives his first potential crisis on Europe

For the next three months I shall (perhaps sporadically) be blogging on the FT's ft-dot-comment blog, analysing the British commentariat and its response to the day's news.

The blog can be found at www.ft.com/ftdotcomment, and my first post is on how Tory commentators have reacted to David Cameron's decision not to have a referendum on the Lisbon treaty.

To sum up the piece, it could have been a lot worse for the Tory leader. But of course I would much prefer you to read the full thing here.

What Obama could learn from Dick Cheney

Dick Cheney is rearing his ugly head once more this morning in the US, making it known that he will be forthright in his criticism of George W Bush in his forthcoming memoirs. Reading Michael Tomasky's blog this morning reminded me of his response to being told two-thirds of the American public thought the Iraq war hadn't been worth fighting: "So?"

That response will make most of those who opposed the war shudder. But it is not necessarily a bad one. It is exactly the kind of response I would like to hear, for instance, from President Obama right now in response to the furious opposition being shown in various local "town hall" meetings across the US to his healthcare reforms.

It is always easy to lambast a politician for sticking resolutely behind a policy they believe in, even when the majority of the electorate disagrees, if you believe the policy is wrong. Many criticised Tony Blair in this way before, during and after the Iraq War. But what about if you believe the policy is right? It is suddenly tempting for moderates and liberals to wish Obama showed the kind of nerve Blair did; to will him to turn round to his red-faced opponents and say: "So?"

Democrats appear to know they cannot take this line of attack. They cannot simply disregard the will of a large and vocal section of the population, no matter how deranged their attacks. So instead they are taking a different line.

Associated Press reports: "In an e-mail to Obama supporters in New Hampshire, an aide invited supporters to counter the counter-protesters and called them organized by "Washington insiders, insurance companies and well-financed special interests who don't go a day without spreading lies and stirring up fear."

This is one of the main lines of attack for the Democrats at the moment: to pretend the anger isn't real; to blame it on organised, well-financed groups of the sort that "swift-boated" John Kerry and who are supposed to be manipulating the gullible Republican masses.

Perhaps the protests are being organised. But the anger is real. Many Americans are furious about the proposals, whether fairly or not.

Part of the problem is that the fury is being fed by misinformation. The lies told about the NHS, for example, culminated this week by an editorial in the Investors Business Daily (sadly, a prominent publication) that claimed Stephen Hawking would not have survived treatment on the NHS. The Democrats would be better off attacking those lies rather than the motive behind the protests.

But I can't help feeling that best of all would have been if President Obama, or perhaps more accurately Congress, had not opened the matter up to these public meetings at all. If, instead of allowing this farce of a debate to take place, he had shown real leadership; if he, when told that a growing majority was opposed to any kind of healthcare reform, knowing that he had the moral imperative to press on regardless, had replied: "So?"

Or is this the kind of talk that allows leaders to get away with illegal wars? Answers on a postcard (or in the comments section will be fine).

An apology

To any New Yorkers upset by my previous post, I should say sorry. Not all of it was strictly accurate. Most of it was exaggerated for comic effect, in order to demonstrate an essential truth I have noticed but which many (but not all) of you have denied - that New York is more expensive than London.

To make amends, I will now attack London in a similarly exaggerated fashion.

Londoners - why are your restaurants so bad?

Much has been made of the renaissance (perhaps that should be naissance) in British cuisine, but just one trip to a city that takes its food seriously shows us how mistaken we are in our prandial self-congratulation.

I'm not talking about high end dining. There is plenty of it in both cities, and I have not been to anywhere near enough of those sorts of restaurant to make a fair comparison.

No, I mean your standard neighbourhood eatery. If I don't want to pay 50 pounds for a meal in London, all too often I am forced to head to my local Pizza Express. Yes, there are cheap and good neighbourhood eateries out there, whether it is Vietnamese on Kingsland Road or South Indian behind Euston. But if you wander down your local street on a Saturday night, you are unlikely to find much diversity or quality.

Not true in New York. Any given main street is likely to have all manner of cafes, bars and restaurants, some pricey, some not too bad, but all serving great food. All of them! What's more, very few of them are chains. Within spitting distance of my apartment, for example, is a fantastic Brazilian bar (sample dish: an enormous and delicious bowl of mussels), a terrific cheese deli with a few cosy tables at the back (try the fondue) and various Mexican places, all of which do free tortillas and home-made (that's the real difference here) salsa with every drink. Even the bars seem to give some kind of consideration to how good their fried chicken is (although it still leaves me with a hankering for a good beef and ale pie every now and then...).

All of this is unheard of in London, where to find a restaurant where they genuinely care about good food without charging the earth is still an unexpected joy. New Yorkers tell me the difference is they have higher standards - I'm inclined to agree, we British all too often suffer in silence rather than demand better.

So while we can crow about St John's or Gordon Ramsay as long as we like, until a Londoner can pop out to their local restaurant and be guaranteed high class food cooked fresh in that kitchen, we will always be behind this true foody city.

New York is more expensive than London, it's official

Dear New Yorkers,

Firstly, thank you very much for letting me come and live in your amazing city for the last four months. I want you to know, before I start on this extended moan, that I really do like you and your city. There really isn't a more intense and spectacular on earth. At least not that I've been to.

But I'm afraid I must correct you on one thing. No, despite what you tell me, London is not more expensive than New York, and I don't need this recent survey to prove that. Your city is cripplingly, hideously dear and no bleating about the price of a London taxi is going to change the fact that it makes London look like Rotherham in comparison.

First up, rents. Yes, space is at a premium, and yes, half the world wants to live in Manhattan, but still, nearly $4,000 a month for one bedroom and a cupboard-kitchen? For that price I could get this place in South Kensington. I can only be grateful I'm not paying my rent here.

Secondly - $8? For a beer? In a standard bar? And it's not even a pint? Are you mad? You may pity the Brits for drinking warm beer, but frankly for those prices I would want my beer personally chilled by Barack Obama himself. I'll take the warmest 3 pound pint of Pride over even an icy Sam Adams on a baking hot day if I have to pay that much for it.

Thirdly, I would like to pay less than $10 for a main meal next time I go out please. I'm not asking for much. Just a simple plate of bar food will do fine. In fairness, your standard mid-market restaurant is at least three times as good as its equivalent in London, and for only twice the price, perhaps that makes good value, in a way. But for those of us whose budgets can't stretch much further than a decent cheap meal out every so often, please stop hurting our wallets. They've not harmed you in any way.

OK, so maybe I should cut back on the number of meals I have out. I'll just pop off to the supermarket. Yes yes, Whole Foods is very nice thanks, but I'm not a banker, so where is your budget option? What's that? Whole Foods IS your budget option? Just a lettuce for me then please.

And back to the cabs. Yes, well done, your cabs are much cheaper than those in London. But here's the scoop. We don't take cabs. Those are for rich people and tourists. We have something called a public transport system, which involves subway trains that go more than once every 20 minutes, and, get this, regular buses! Shocking but true.

Anyway, apologies for the rant. I really do love your city. And thanks to the not-paying-rent thing (see above), I've been able to enjoy it in a far less parsimonious fashion than I may have led you to believe. But please don't complain about London being expensive, I promise you it's nothing on what you guys put up with here.

Where would you rather live?

This graph was on the front of the FT this morning. It is a composite made by the OECD of various leading economic indicators, with the 100 level being that country's long-term average. Only question is, which economy is in the best health? Americans might be surprised to find their economy may not be the one to lead the world out of recession.

A nugget of sense amid a lot of hot air on MPs' expenses

Anyone up late enough last night to listen to 5 Live's Up All Night might have heard one MP finally being honest and talking some sense about expenses. If you didn't the link is here.

Lib Dem MP Nick Harvey, who sits on the Commons committee which looks at expenses, told the programme's new "Front Bench" slot MPs have a right to feel aggrieved about the whistleblower who sold the expenses information, but not at the Telegraph for publishing the stories. "If I was the Telegraph's editor," he said, "I would have done the same."

As a journalist I am normally the first to come to the defence of whistleblowers, but there is something that seems off about the sale of information for such a high price (probably £100,00) here. Having said that, I don't feel the money paid has had any effect on the quality or the public interest nature of the material, and I think the country is a better place for the revelations.

Meanwhile other MPs, as so often, have decided their best form of defence is to attack journalists. Personally, I don't feel BBC newscasters should be as large a sum as Carrie Gracie admits in that conversation. But exorbitant salaries are the fault of the employer, not the employee. Being crafty with your expense forms is another matter entirely.

I don't wish to repeat here a debate that has been pretty thoroughly covered by others. But I would like to point people in the direction of Roy Greenslade, who showed an unexpected bout of generosity towards his journalistic peers earlier this week.

PS - And have I ever fiddled my expenses? No. In an industry that is desperately trying to survive, that kind of culture is quickly dying out. MPs should take note. They are not bankers or lawyers, or even comedians, who only have to answer to their organisations. They are public servants. Sermon over.

Rupert agrees with me

When I wrote a few days ago that newspapers that charge for online content are ahead of the game, I'm not sure how many agreed with me. But Rupert Murdoch evidently read the post, and did, telling a conference call he was looking at charging users of his British newspapers' websites. Tip of the hat to Phil Craven for the link.

Well, perhaps this is simply the latest twist in the long-running saga of Rupert-figuring-out-how-this-internet-thingy-actually-works, but I like to think I played a small part somewhere.

Some will say Murdoch's strategy is a step backwards, the actions of a man who simply can't let go of the glorious past he enjoyed in newspapers and embrace the future. They may say his $5bn purchase of Dow Jones, which includes the Wall Street Journal is an example of that. But I disagree for the reasons previously pointed out.

Meanwhile over at Guardian Towers, where they pride themselves on having a multi-award winning website, they simply cannot make it pay. Carolyn McCall, Guardian Media Group's chief executive, recently told attendees of a magazine congress in London, ""We have a great audience in America. We need to make some money out of that."

Yes they do. Although GMG is run by a trust, the fact that it is considering selling a further stake in Trader Media, one of its cash cows, suggests the group needs to start making money out of its major titles soon.

Here's an idea to make money Carolyn. Why not make people pay for the hard work done by your journalists? Just a thought.