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.

The Evening Standard's breathtaking volte-face

I can't think of a bolder ad campaign than this, certainly not in the newspaper industry.

The Standard can be pretty hateful at times, and it certainly seems that it has lost touch with London as a liberal, open, multicultural city. But the paper also produces a lot of quality journalism, often breaking stories that leave the nationals in its wake.

So how will this complete capitulation of former editorial policy affect the quality of journalism on what is one of the few local papers that continues to punch above its weight? And what must this do to morale among the staff who worked so hard to produce that output?

We can only hope this isn't a cover for yet another erosion of proper journalism in the face of falling sales.

My question may soon be answered...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/may/01/gordon-brown-expenses-u-turn

Which Labour rat will jump ship first?

The last death throes of any government or at least dominant era in political thinking are almost always marked by a defection or two. From 1995 to 1999, no fewer than six Tories left the fold, with two joining the Lib Dems and three going to Labour. In 1981, two years after being voted out of office, Labour was hit by the quadruple defection of the Gang of Four. But the writing was on the wall long before that, as a recession hit Labour struggled to keep the confidence of the electorate and its own party (sound familiar?), and five MPs left the party between 1974 and 1977.

Here in the US, Arlen Specter is the latest example of the phenomenon, moving to the Democrats to give them a filibuster-proof 60-seat Senate majority. (Although with Mr Specter saying his voting patterns won't change, it remains to be seen how much this is simply a symbolic move.)

It seems inevitable that it will start to happen in the UK soon. But who will go and where?

To deal with the second question first, it might seem intuitive that the Lib Dems would be the main gainers from any defections. The Labour party remains more tribal than the Tories, and it is still highly unusual for a Labour MP to make the move all the way from left to right.

But this time may be different. David Cameron has successfully positioned himself as the "heir to Blair", and Nick Clegg has struggled to define himself and the party as any real alternative. Labour is still riven with Blair-Brown divisions, and my guess is that it is only a matter of time before a Blairite chooses to climb aboard the Tory bandwagon.

My initial though was that Stephen Byers would soon cross the floor. He has recently sounded more conservative than the Conservatives, first calling for an end to inheritance tax, when the Tories only wanted to see it lowered, then opposing the 50p tax rate, something the Tories have struggled to sound decisive on. He is the kind of disaffected ex-Blairite who would be ripe for a move. The problem is, the thought of a Tory MP for North Tyneside is simply too unlikely to be a possibility. It may be of course that Byers simply waits for the next election before jumping, and lets Cameron put him up somewhere far more blue-friendly.

But I'm opening this one up for discussion. Who will be the first off the sinking ship and where will they go?