Over many years Stone has conducted a relentless examination of power and politics in his own country and how the USA takes its place in the world. I recently watched Wall Street for the first time in years. The Observer’s Carole Cadwalladr is right to describe it as a brilliant, prescient taste of what was to come.

As with many other artists of his generation the decisive political event in Stone’s life is the Vietnam war. The conclusions he draws from that war have shaped his response to subsequent wars and to the USA’s attitude to Latin America. What he says in the Observer about these is worth reproducing.

“My father was a Republican. And he hated Roosevelt. And that’s sort of been the battle of my life, I think. You have to understand that I grew up a Republican conservative. I hated Castro. And I put my money where my mouth was because I went to war, but I understood pretty quickly that this was another place, another culture, and we would never fit in there.

“It’s the same story in Afghanistan, Iraq and South America. It’s white people meeting people who they think they are better than. And I feel that this war is the war of my life. I’ve seen it over and over again and if I can do one thing with what’s left of my remaining years, it’s just to cry it out and say it, I hope, with enough entertainment that people will want see it.”

Stone puts his finger on the connection between racism, colonialism and wars of occupation: “It’s white people meeting people who they think they are better than.”  

Read the interview here.

Accusing the mayor of having passed his ”Emperor’s New Clothes moment,” Bar-Hillel pulls no punches: “he can’t admit he’s wrong, but he’s a little too lazy to do his homework properly, and that often leaves him intellectually denuded.”

“Just how well-suited is Boris to power?” she asks.

Bar-Hillel characterises Johnson’s administration as “well-meaning enthusiasm, followed by listening to bad advice, several u-turns, and an unsatisfactory result.” She reckons he is “too weak, too lazy and too ill-advised at the highest level to implement his policies. He lacks attention to detail and, because of his desire to be liked and to avoid confrontation with City Hall staff and agencies, he is all too easily fobbed off.”

The catalogue of senior appointees who have departed Johnson’s administration over the last two years is for Bar-Hillel  the clearest indication of what has gone wrong.

“Worst of all, he seems to have fallen among thieves. No fewer than five top ‘aides’ have famously been forced out of office in lamentable circumstances, severely damaging the reputation of the man who first appointed them and then — in some cases — allowed them to stay in post long after it was no longer tenable. In March he had to sack Bertha Joseph, deputy chairman of the London Fire Authority, who had spent £900 of charitable donations on two ballgowns — but only after rejecting earlier demands to do so. He also waited far too long before dismissing the appalling Deputy Mayor Ian Clement, who was then convicted of misusing a City Hall credit card. It really makes you wonder who he consults before making his appointments.”

This is all the more noteworthy when you consider just how critical of Ken Livingstone’s administration Bar-Hillel was. Her coverage was more critical of Ken for much longer than anyone I can think of. She admits in her Spectator piece that she was desperate for Ken to lose.

Indeed, Bar-Hillel’s piece reveals the extent of the Boris Johnson partisanship practised by some at the Standard during the campaign. She reveals that she attended meetings to assist his campaign and advised him on planning policy, even going as far as to take credit for some of Johnson’s messages on planning.

“I was then summoned to join Boris’s election ‘planning task force’,” she writes. “The session was a bit chaotic, but I clearly recall urging Boris to end Ken’s eight-year war with the London boroughs and promise not to interfere with their democratically made planning decisions unless it was absolutely necessary. He agreed, and this message, especially to the mainly Tory outer boroughs, was acknowledged as one of the election tactics which helped win him the crucial suburban vote.”

After the election she briefed the mayor’s office on planning policy and claims she was headhunted as a potential deputy mayor.

We already knew about the closeness between Boris Johnson and some at the Standard during the mayoral election campaign. Mira Bar-Hillel adds to our understanding of that with this article.

But it’s the front page that will have the biggest impact in City Hall – the ex-editor of the Spectator caricatured on his own former magazine’s front page under the headline Has Boris Lost His Grip?

Boris Johnson could rely on a honeymoon for longer than most politicians. The prevailing line of the national media throughout Johnson’s first two years has been to get Labour. Scrutinisng a Tory mayor was not part of that narrative. Now that Labour is out of office there is greater scope for Johnson to be put under the spotlight. But even the most seasoned City Hall-watchers will be surprised to see the Spectator taking the first post-election shot at the Tory mayor of London.

I didn’t have time to post this yesterday, but here’s Tessa Jowell’s comment on the London general election results, where Labour held a succession of seats that were predicted to be going from red to blue.  That’s in addition to the succession of local government victories in London that have seen Labour take back council after council.

Tessa Jowell said:

‘‘From the results that have been declared so far, Labour in London has exceeded expectations. The Tories and Liberal Democrats will be extremely disappointed.

“We have had some fantastic results in London with Sadiq Khan winning Tooting, Andy Slaughter winning Hammersmith, Karen Buck winning Westminster North and Emily Thornberry actually increasing her majority from 484 to 3569 in Islington South. And I am delighted that Margaret Hodge has decisively beaten the BNP’s Nick Griffin in Barking and doubled her majority.

“Just two days ago the Tories were predicting a landslide in London, winning seats like Hayes and Harlington. The Tories will be bitterly disappointed not to have performed better in the capital.

“It is clear that Boris Johnson’s police cuts and hikes in bus fares were very unpopular with Londoners.’’

The Tories had high expectations in many of these seats. Expectations were high that Labour would lose these constituencies, and in many cases it was the Tories themselves who raised them.

* Westminster North

“The Tory candidate for Westminster North has been tipped as part of the new pool of talent from which David Cameron will draw to fill his front benches. Ms Cash – a libel lawyer – has been chosen to contest the key marginal seat in the next election… Ms Cash represents the sort of candidate that Mr Cameron has been desperate to attract to inject a wider range of experience into a future ministerial team.”  Times report of 5th January, 2010, published on Joanne Cash’s website.

“A Eurosceptic with a sharp mind, she has become close to many within Cameron’s inner circle due to her work for Policy Exchange on freedom of expression and public order. Expect rapid progress up the ranks.” The Telegraph, 10th September 2009

* Islington South

“Bridget Fox is the bookies’ favourite to win Islington South.” Islington Tribune, 30^th April 2010

“The Lib Dems seem well on track to relieve Labour of Islington South.” Guardian online, 26^th April 2010

“Bridget is set to win”  Islington Lib Dems, 25^th April 2010

* Hayes and Harlington

“In an interview with the Standard, he departed from the party’s official line of caution by naming a string of London seats where Conservatives think huge Labour majorities have suddenly become vulnerable. ‘They include Hayes & Harlington, where Labour’s John McDonnell had a massive 10,594 or 28 per cent majority in 2005. It would only fall to the Tories on a swing of more than 14 per cent, the sort of seismic shift normally only seen in a landslide. ‘Others claimed to be tottering are Feltham & Heston, where expenses scandal MP Alan Keen has a 19 per cent majority, and Harrow West, where aid minister Gareth Thomas has an 18 per cent majority. “There are lots of seats in London which at the beginning of the campaign I wouldn’t have thought it possible to win but now I think we can,” said Mr Osborne. “Hayes & Harlington was not on our radar at all at the beginning of the campaign.” “The shadow chancellor, also co-ordinator of the campaign, said: “We are fighting for a Conservative majority. I think that’s within our grasp.” George Osborne – Evening Standard – 04.05.10

* Hampstead and Kilburn

‘Eighteen of the capital’s 73 parliamentary seats could change hands, with high-profile Labour casualties expected to include Glenda Jackson…’ Evening Standard, 5th May

Labour’s wins in London against the reported expectations:

Hammersmith

Westminster North

Islington South and Finsbury

Eltham

Feltham and Heston

Tooting

Hampstead and Kilburn

Harrow West

Barking

Larry Elliott breaks ranks with his paper’s editorial line today, backing Labour as the party offering the best prospect of social justice.

Of course, Larry Elliott is critical of Labour. He sets out what he thinks Labour has got wrong, and where it has been right.

But he also he openly questions the paper’s recent editorial decision.

“It is ironic that newspapers such as this one, which supported the government in the days when it told us we should learn to love the market, should desert it when it is moving in a progressive direction,” he says.

And he concludes:

“Above all, [Labour] should argue that it offers, warts and all, the best prospect among the three main parties of social justice. Which it does.”

“For now, however, the cause of reform is overwhelmingly more likely to be achieved by a Lib Dem partnership of principle with Labour than by a Lib Dem marriage of convenience with a Tory party which is explicitly hostile to the cause and which currently plans to redraw the political map for its own advantage. The momentum for change would be fatally undermined should the Conservatives win an overall majority.”

Yet as is argued elsewhere on the Guardian’s website today, there is absolutely no guarantee whatsoever that Nick Clegg will not form an alliance with David Cameron. During this campaign he has given clear hints that he would talk to Cameron, not Brown, first, if there were to be a hung parliament. He faces different ways on the issue, but the fact that he is prepared to face in the direction of the Tories at any point at all is a clear enough reason not to vote Liberal Democrat.  

It is an issue that affects voters where I live, in the constituency of Brent Central. Here, it is no secret that the fight is between Labour the Liberal Democrats. Between these two, on the key question of whether the Tories will get back into government or not, the only way to be sure that we do not get a Tory government is to elect an MP who rules out a coalition with the Conservatives. Only a Labour MP will definitely deliver this.

After Sarah Teather won the Brent East byelection the Liberal Democrats built a base in the borough and won many Labour voters in Labour wards to their cause in the local elections in 2006. Many of these voters were voting LibDem with good intentions but I doubt that very many of them believed the Liberal Democrat councillors they had elected would then proceed to put the Brent Conservatives back in power in the borough. Nonetheless, that’s what they did.

Many Liberal Democrat voters do not agree with these alliances with the Conservatives. But Nick Clegg doesn’t rule them out.

Only the biggest possible Labour vote, and only Labour MPs, will stop the Conservatives getting into power.

Despite this limitation one thing came through crystal clear. The alliance the Tories have formed in the north of Ireland with the UUP places them in the same place as their alliances in Europe – well outside the realm of good judgement. In Europe they’re firmly in a bloc with parties beyond the mainstream centre-right forces of Sarkozy and Merkel. In Ireland they’ve jumped into a coalition with a party that unlike the party of Ian Paisley will not work to deliver the next phase of the peace process.

Cameron’s judgement and his ability to govern in the interests of lasting progress in the north of Ireland is rightly – once again – under the spotlight this evening.

It’s a welcome return, adding an extra dimension to online City Hall-watching. Here’s her take this week on the confirmation hearing for Kit Malthouse’s appointment, and possible future directions for the MPA.

Read Pippa’s blog here.

The first is broken promises. In his manifesto Boris Johnson gave a commitment [pdf, see page three] that he would reintroduce tidal flow in the Blackwall tunnel. Now he says he can’t do it for legal reasons.

There are two options. Either he was right during the election, in which case it is simply incompetent not to implement his promise. Or he is right now, in which case it was incompetent – or worse – to make a promise that could not be kept. But either way it means that many people who use the tunnel or are affected by it have been cut adrift by Boris Johnson despite his claim to speak for them.

The second is the failure to submit himself to real accountability and scrutiny. Assembly members now routinely highlight Johnson’s repeated refusal to answer questions. The problem extends to the media. It crept its way into the public domain today. At the end of Boris Johnson’s half hour on Nick Ferrari’s programme Ferrari told listeners trying to get through that LBC had been trying to get a longer slot from Johnson but had so far failed to get one agreed. LBC then took the unusual step of tweeting that they had such a short time slot from Johnson:

lbc973: Thanks for your questions for Boris. Sorry if you didn’t get your question on, but we only had 30 minutes with the Mayor.

The Standard’s Paul Waugh then entered the fray, retweeting the LBC comment and adding “sounds like Bojo upset NFerrari.”  Adam Bienkov replied to Paul that Ferrari said Ken Livingstone always gave him an hour.

The Mirror’s Kevin Maguire, who often hosts programmes on LBC, jumped in on Twitter too: 

Kevin_Maguire: Ken Liv was radio grilled 60 mins every month, Boris Johnson gives just 30 every 6 weeks @lbc973 BoJo running scared?

 Labour’s leader on the London Assembly, Len Duvall, was quick to make an mischievous offer: 

Len_Duvall: @lbc973 I’d be happy to do the second half hour in future if the Mayor wants to avoid answering questions

That LBC felt prompted both on air and via their own Twitter account to point out that Boris Johnson was giving them such a short slot is symptomatic of the fact that the mayor does not take the London-wide media seriously. He has ended the practice of his predecessor of making himself available to the media most concerned with London politics through weekly press conferences. He barely holds press conferences at all. He contemptuously argues that if the media want to question him they can go and find him doing local visits, but on key occasions he is often unavailable at all – for example on the first working day back under this year’s fares Boris Johnson avoided interviews, handing them to his transport adviser Kulveer Ranger. The London segment of the Politics Show, despite being filmed only a few floors below his office, has never been graced with an interview with the mayor.

Johnson’s media strategy may be to concentrate on national broadcast media who are less likely to know the details of devolved London politics than their counterparts concentrating on the capital, and therefore more likely to give him an easy ride.

But as the Ferrari show demonstrated today, the effect is to snub not only the dedicated London media but the people who matter most – Londoners. What is he scared of?

The three- person sub-committee, with a majority of independent members, investigated a complaint from a member of the public who questioned whether it was appropriate for Johnson to use his mayoral twitter feed to welcome the Sun’s endorsement of the Conservative party – which he cheered with “The sun has got his hat on, hip hip hip hooray.”

The committee has now found [pdf] that:

Having regard to all the circumstances, the Assessment Sub-Committee concluded that, by writing in that manner, the Mayor of London could be seen to have breached paragraph 6(b) (ii) of the Authority’s Code of Conduct, as it appeared on the evidence presented that the Mayor of London was using GLA resources in seeking to affect party political support.

Having regards to all the facts and circumstances, the Assessment Sub-Committee considered that it was appropriate and proportionate for it to take a decision of “other action”, requiring the GLA’s Monitoring Officer to raise this with Mr Johnson, the Mayor of London, and give guidance to him about the use by him or his office of the Mayor of London twitter account.

[My emphasis]

The hyperlink to the twitter account was found on the Mayor of London page on the GLA website. The standards commitee concluded that Johnson was clearly acting in his official capacity.

The report into the alleged misuse of GLA resources also reported “it was not clear from the Mayor of London’s twitter page whether the tweet was written by the Mayor of London, or by someone on his behalf.”

Johnson – or someone on his behalf – had linked via his tweet to the Sun’s front page announcing its decision to endorse the Conservative party and end support for Labour.

H/t @Helzbels

As the judges commented, “Faced with the difficult task of reducing the number of deaths and the number of injuries that cyclists sustain on London’s roads, this campaign moved away from traditional shock tactic strategy and instead tried to understand what is causing these accidents.”

Commissioned during Ken Livingstone’s period as mayor as part of a policy to reduce accidents as cycling increased it was first released in March 2008 and was developed by the ad agency WCRS. It formed part of an overall strategy that saw cycling deaths in London significantly reduced.

Campaign magazine last year described the ad as the “biggest and most effective (yet cheapest to make)” of TfL’s TV campaigns, calling it “remarkably successful.”

“Despite having only limited TV and cinema airings, the ad was viewed more than ten million times online (and this despite it being removed from YouTube for a time during the initial furore over the copyright issue) and 58,000 people visited www.dothetest.com.”

The ad also won a gold at Cannes in the Public Service TV category and was shortlisted for a Cyber Lion.

It shows the public benefit of investing in marketing and publicity initiatives, and of taking this sector seriously in its own right as one of the tools of effective city-wide government.

Sadly it must be contrasted with the ongoing debacle over the “brand for London” excercise, which appears to be threatening City Hall’s reputation with professionals in the design sector. It follows the shambles in promoting the Story of London festival, anger and concern amongst business leaders about poor promotion of London abroad, the weak promotion of St George’s Day that saw less attendees in Trafalgar Square than under Ken Livingstone, the tube map row, and the failure to adequately market half price travel to potential recipients – amongst others.

The upshot is that the current administration under Boris Johnson has adopted a policy that may be accurately described as a false economy, cutting corners on communicating with Londoners in a way that’s ultimately self-defeating. The pity is that London is rich with talent in this field, yet City Hall is failing to utilise that resource.

[A footnote: TfL's Managing Director of Marketing and Communications, Nigel Marson, is leaving. Under Nigel TfL won Campaign Magazine's Advertiser of the Year award].