Mussolini's secret mistress and their love child come to life in a film by Italian director Marco Bellocchio showing in competition at the Cannes film festival on Tuesday.
"Vincere" recounts the ends to which the dictator went to hide the mother and child who potentially could have put a brake on his rise to power in pre-war Italy.
"The Mussolini I talk about is not the affectionate pater familias sometimes shown on television whose only mistake was to ally himself with Hitler," Bellocchio told the leading Italian daily Corriere della Sera.
Two works inspired the film, Mussolini's Wife by Marco Zeni and The Secret Son of Il Duce by Alfredo Pieroni.
"He's a violent, calculating, merciless man, even towards the woman he loved and his own son," said Bellocchio, 69.
In 1914, Mussolini, then aged 31, belonged to the Socialist Party, directed the daily newspaper Avanti! and had lived for two years in northern Milan with Rachele Guidi, who would later become his wife.
But he chalked up numerous affairs, including with Ida Irene Dasler, a strong-willed woman three years his senior who ran a beauty salon.
Ida staunchly supported him when he was expelled by the Socialist Party for backing Italy's entry into World War I.
She even sold her salon to help him found his own newspaper, Il Popolo d'Italia (The People of Italy).
Some journalists and historians say the couple married in 1914, but this is disputed.
Ida was seven months pregnant when Mussolini left for the front in August 1915. She gave birth to their son Benito Albino on November 11.
She informed Mussolini of the news in a letter, but received no reply.
Instead, she heard he was hospitalised with jaundice and went to his side with the babe in arms.
The day before, Mussolini had married another lover, Rachele, at the hospital.
Nevertheless he promised Dasler that he would recognise their child, and he followed through a few months later before returning to the front.
He also sent a monthly allowance for the boy.
But Mussolini soon turned his back on his former mistress, ignoring her letters and putting her under police surveillance. The young mother doggedly continued to write to him and complained of her situation to the authorities.
Once Mussolini rose to the height of power in November 1922, he ordered even closer surveillance of Dasler lest she make more waves.
In 1926, when Il Duce had become undisputed dictator, muzzling the press and the opposition, Dasler was arrested and thrown into a mental hospital. The boy was forcibly taken from her and put in the care of a tutor.
Dasler, after being moved to two more institutions and never allowed visits or correspondence, finally died aged 57 in 1937.
The boy, who was 11 when his mother was first sent to an institution, studied at boarding school until he was 18 when he entered the marines.
Although Mussolini had no contact with him, he had a close eye kept on the boy.
The fact that the young Benito kept in touch with his mother's family troubled the authorities, who sent him without warning to Asia in 1934.
The next year when Benito returned to Italy he was hospitalised, and like his mother transferred to a psychiatric facility in 1936, where he died six years later, aged only 26.
He and his mother were both buried in unmarked graves
Monday, May 18, 2009
Distressed property sales hit upscale condos
More than 170 people crowded the ballroom of a Long Beach hotel for what amounted to an upscale fire sale.
The event was an auction. The products were 38 posh waterfront condominiums. And bidders like Mike Murphy came looking for bargains.
The Internet marketing worker snapped up a two-bedroom unit for $376,000, less than half the original price. In all, he and other eager buyers ponied up $14.9 million in less than 90 minutes.
Last Monday's event represented the latest evolution in distressed-property auctions: These last-resort sales are going high-end. In contrast to auctions of foreclosed homes, which are as ubiquitous as trashed houses in the suburban hinterlands, these sales involve brand-new, often luxurious condominium units in prime locations.
Across Southern California, projects conceived during the housing boom, but completed after the bust, are sitting largely vacant. Developers are desperate to unload these units, but they face some particular challenges. Banks often won't provide mortgages to buyers in buildings that are less than 50% occupied, reducing the pool of eligible purchasers. Converting the projects to rentals means even steeper losses because the cash flow often won't cover a developer's construction costs.
Condo developers are now hosting their own auctions to attract a critical mass of buyers fast. It's a practice that Irvine real estate consultant John Burns projects will become more widespread this year.
"I don't think you have much choice," he said. "You either turn it into an apartment rental complex or find some other way to turn it into 50% occupied very quickly. An auction seems like a logical choice."
Real estate values continue to fall across much of Southern California, keeping many buyers on the fence for fear of paying too much. An auction gives them real-time assurance that the price is set by an open, competitive process, not the seller's whim, said David Parsky, director of West Coast investments for Citi Property Investors. That's a unit of Citigroup Inc. that is the controlling owner of West Ocean Two, the Long Beach building that auctioned its units last week.
"If people don't have to buy, they're not going to unless there's a reason," Parsky said. "If the market had more demand than supply, we wouldn't be doing this."
Other recent auctions include new condominium projects in downtown Los Angeles and South Pasadena. More are coming in places including Pacific Palisades and Playa del Rey.
At last week's sell-off in Long Beach, the lowest price paid was $228,000 for a one-bedroom unit on the second floor of the 22-story building. The developers had originally listed it for $512,800. The highest price paid, $718,000, was for a three-bedroom unit on the 19th floor originally priced at $1,415,600.
Whether these deep discounts were truly bargains depends on how much further the market has to fall. The median resale price for condominium units in Southern California was $230,000 in March, down 30% from the same month the previous year, according to the real estate research firm MDA DataQuick.
Some auction buyers did pay less than others who bought last year. In November, a two-bedroom, 1,040-square-foot unit in West Ocean Two sold for $545,000, public records show. Last week, similar-size units were auctioned for $430,000 and $419,000.
The auction was the second for the building. The first was held in August, after only 20 of the building's 114 units had been sold. That gathering resulted in 33 sales, prompting Parsky to hold last week's event.
Auction participant Murphy showed up at the Long Beach Hilton more than an hour early to get a crack at the bidding. A resident of Long Beach, he had been watching the market for an opportunity to move up from his 700-square-foot condo.
Murphy, 41, said he had been biding his time in his new home search, but the chance to get a bargain at auction sped up his plans.
"It forced me to get my ducks in a row and get a firm idea of where I want to go," he said.
Murphy said he wasn't overly concerned that the value of his new purchase might decline. No one can call the bottom with certainty, he figures, and he believes that he got a deal. Comparable units in the neighborhood are selling for almost $25,000 more than what he paid, Murphy said. Besides, the extra storage in his new garage will be perfect for his hockey equipment.
Converting foot-dragging looky-loos into buyers is the magic of the auction, developer Alon Zakoot said. He plans to unload the last seven condos in his 16-unit Pacific Palisades building at a public sale May 31.
Buyers these days can be downright surly, Zakoot said, because they consider every property to be overpriced.
An auction "is kind of a trick. They don't come in so negative," he said. "They allow themselves the mentality to love the unit.
"You tell them there is an auction, they talk about how pretty the building is, how beautiful. Before, when you set one price . . . all you get is negativity."
Zakoot now gets about 150 weekend visitors to open houses, about double the traffic he got when he was trying, without success, to sell the units conventionally.
More important, "before, when somebody comes, they stay 15 minutes. Now they stay two hours," he said.
Zakoot resorted to an auction because he wanted to cut his losses quickly so he could move on to other projects, he said.
He began designing and planning the project in 2003, when the housing market was still hot.
In 2006, someone offered him $12 million for the still-bare land and project plans. The sum would have yielded an instant profit. Zakoot, a jocular, self-deprecating Israeli immigrant, said he turned it down because "I am a smart guy."
Minimum bids for his upcoming auction start at $449,000 for a two-bedroom unit and $1.149 million for a four-bedroom unit. What he'll get is anybody's guess, Zakoot said.
But he's certain of one thing: Whatever the outcome of the auction, he's done as a condominium developer.
"Never a condominium," he said. "Never again."
The event was an auction. The products were 38 posh waterfront condominiums. And bidders like Mike Murphy came looking for bargains.
The Internet marketing worker snapped up a two-bedroom unit for $376,000, less than half the original price. In all, he and other eager buyers ponied up $14.9 million in less than 90 minutes.
Last Monday's event represented the latest evolution in distressed-property auctions: These last-resort sales are going high-end. In contrast to auctions of foreclosed homes, which are as ubiquitous as trashed houses in the suburban hinterlands, these sales involve brand-new, often luxurious condominium units in prime locations.
Across Southern California, projects conceived during the housing boom, but completed after the bust, are sitting largely vacant. Developers are desperate to unload these units, but they face some particular challenges. Banks often won't provide mortgages to buyers in buildings that are less than 50% occupied, reducing the pool of eligible purchasers. Converting the projects to rentals means even steeper losses because the cash flow often won't cover a developer's construction costs.
Condo developers are now hosting their own auctions to attract a critical mass of buyers fast. It's a practice that Irvine real estate consultant John Burns projects will become more widespread this year.
"I don't think you have much choice," he said. "You either turn it into an apartment rental complex or find some other way to turn it into 50% occupied very quickly. An auction seems like a logical choice."
Real estate values continue to fall across much of Southern California, keeping many buyers on the fence for fear of paying too much. An auction gives them real-time assurance that the price is set by an open, competitive process, not the seller's whim, said David Parsky, director of West Coast investments for Citi Property Investors. That's a unit of Citigroup Inc. that is the controlling owner of West Ocean Two, the Long Beach building that auctioned its units last week.
"If people don't have to buy, they're not going to unless there's a reason," Parsky said. "If the market had more demand than supply, we wouldn't be doing this."
Other recent auctions include new condominium projects in downtown Los Angeles and South Pasadena. More are coming in places including Pacific Palisades and Playa del Rey.
At last week's sell-off in Long Beach, the lowest price paid was $228,000 for a one-bedroom unit on the second floor of the 22-story building. The developers had originally listed it for $512,800. The highest price paid, $718,000, was for a three-bedroom unit on the 19th floor originally priced at $1,415,600.
Whether these deep discounts were truly bargains depends on how much further the market has to fall. The median resale price for condominium units in Southern California was $230,000 in March, down 30% from the same month the previous year, according to the real estate research firm MDA DataQuick.
Some auction buyers did pay less than others who bought last year. In November, a two-bedroom, 1,040-square-foot unit in West Ocean Two sold for $545,000, public records show. Last week, similar-size units were auctioned for $430,000 and $419,000.
The auction was the second for the building. The first was held in August, after only 20 of the building's 114 units had been sold. That gathering resulted in 33 sales, prompting Parsky to hold last week's event.
Auction participant Murphy showed up at the Long Beach Hilton more than an hour early to get a crack at the bidding. A resident of Long Beach, he had been watching the market for an opportunity to move up from his 700-square-foot condo.
Murphy, 41, said he had been biding his time in his new home search, but the chance to get a bargain at auction sped up his plans.
"It forced me to get my ducks in a row and get a firm idea of where I want to go," he said.
Murphy said he wasn't overly concerned that the value of his new purchase might decline. No one can call the bottom with certainty, he figures, and he believes that he got a deal. Comparable units in the neighborhood are selling for almost $25,000 more than what he paid, Murphy said. Besides, the extra storage in his new garage will be perfect for his hockey equipment.
Converting foot-dragging looky-loos into buyers is the magic of the auction, developer Alon Zakoot said. He plans to unload the last seven condos in his 16-unit Pacific Palisades building at a public sale May 31.
Buyers these days can be downright surly, Zakoot said, because they consider every property to be overpriced.
An auction "is kind of a trick. They don't come in so negative," he said. "They allow themselves the mentality to love the unit.
"You tell them there is an auction, they talk about how pretty the building is, how beautiful. Before, when you set one price . . . all you get is negativity."
Zakoot now gets about 150 weekend visitors to open houses, about double the traffic he got when he was trying, without success, to sell the units conventionally.
More important, "before, when somebody comes, they stay 15 minutes. Now they stay two hours," he said.
Zakoot resorted to an auction because he wanted to cut his losses quickly so he could move on to other projects, he said.
He began designing and planning the project in 2003, when the housing market was still hot.
In 2006, someone offered him $12 million for the still-bare land and project plans. The sum would have yielded an instant profit. Zakoot, a jocular, self-deprecating Israeli immigrant, said he turned it down because "I am a smart guy."
Minimum bids for his upcoming auction start at $449,000 for a two-bedroom unit and $1.149 million for a four-bedroom unit. What he'll get is anybody's guess, Zakoot said.
But he's certain of one thing: Whatever the outcome of the auction, he's done as a condominium developer.
"Never a condominium," he said. "Never again."
Jewish day schools facing an economic crisis
At Harkham Hillel Hebrew Academy in Beverly Hills, increasing numbers of cash-strapped families are asking for financial assistance or more time to pay tuition.
Trustees at Yeshivat Yavneh in Hancock Park are setting aside additional funds for financial aid even as some families consider home schooling.
In Orange County, Morasha Jewish Day School lost 15 financially ailing families over the summer and will close after this term.
Jewish day schools in Southern California and across the nation face an economic crisis that is prompting calls for major education reforms and increased support from the wider Jewish community.
The Orthodox Union, a New York-based education and service organization, recently proposed a plan to create stripped-down, low-cost schools targeted at families who can't afford to send their children to established institutions.
Other proposals drafted by the group include nationwide, low-cost health insurance for staff and teachers, a solar energy conversion plan and a dedicated fund to which the local Orthodox community would contribute, whether or not they have children in school.
"If things continue the way they are, schools are going to be so cost-prohibitive the system will collapse," said Rabbi Saul Zucker, director of educational services at the Orthodox Union. "There are Orthodox Jewish students attending public schools because of financial issues that a generation ago would never have, and young married couples having fewer children because of tuition costs."
About 200,000 students attend more than 700 Jewish day schools in the United States. Tuitions at the schools average about $14,000 and in the past five years have typically increased about 7% per year, outpacing wage increases for most families, Zucker said.
The most radical of Zucker's proposals would create alternative schools that would charge reduced fees of about $6,500 annually but operate with larger class sizes, scaled-down computer labs and no extracurricular activities unless staffed by volunteers.
Zucker acknowledged concerns about creating a two-tier system but predicted that parents would go along if it were a choice between a basic Jewish education or public schools.
In Los Angeles, 36 Jewish day schools serve about 10,000 students, according to the Bureau of Jewish Education of Greater Los Angeles. About 40% of Jewish day students in Los Angeles receive financial aid, a number expected to grow even as philanthropic dollars for some schools decrease.
"While there are a handful of philanthropists who heavily support their favorite Jewish institution, until Jewish education becomes more of a priority for the larger Jewish community, we will have this crisis," said Rabbi Moshe Dear, head of school at Yeshivat Yavneh.
His school, which charges $15,000 in annual tuition, is offering delayed payment plans. But Dear said he has heard that some parents are considering home schooling to save money.
Jewish schools are suffering many of the same economic pressures as secular prep schools and parochial campuses, but many shoulder the added expense of a religious-training curriculum that requires additional staff.
Orthodox families also tend to be larger than many others, which contributes to a heavier tuition burden, Dear and others said. And most consider a Jewish education -- with its emphasis on religious traditions -- indispensable.
That is the case for parents Gil and Iris Harel, who have two children attending Hillel, another at a local Jewish high school and a son in college.
But it has been a financial struggle to keep their children in school. Family vacations, investments, choice of vehicles and day-to-day purchases such as clothing have been affected as the "uncertainty of the economy harms everyone," said Gil Harel, a specialized general contractor.
Meanwhile, there will probably be more scenarios like that in Rancho Santa Margarita, where Morasha Jewish Day School, a pre-kindergarten-through-sixth-grade campus with 60 students, is closing after 23 years.
Even though the school expected to increase enrollment next year, it could not close a $200,000 deficit, said head of school Eve Fein. Morasha lost 15 families this year and had trouble selling two acres of property when the real estate market crashed.
"We had over 50% of our students on tuition assistance and were happy to be able to do so because we didn't want Jewish education to be just for the elite or rich," Fein said. "But it caught up with us."
Trustees at Yeshivat Yavneh in Hancock Park are setting aside additional funds for financial aid even as some families consider home schooling.
In Orange County, Morasha Jewish Day School lost 15 financially ailing families over the summer and will close after this term.
Jewish day schools in Southern California and across the nation face an economic crisis that is prompting calls for major education reforms and increased support from the wider Jewish community.
The Orthodox Union, a New York-based education and service organization, recently proposed a plan to create stripped-down, low-cost schools targeted at families who can't afford to send their children to established institutions.
Other proposals drafted by the group include nationwide, low-cost health insurance for staff and teachers, a solar energy conversion plan and a dedicated fund to which the local Orthodox community would contribute, whether or not they have children in school.
"If things continue the way they are, schools are going to be so cost-prohibitive the system will collapse," said Rabbi Saul Zucker, director of educational services at the Orthodox Union. "There are Orthodox Jewish students attending public schools because of financial issues that a generation ago would never have, and young married couples having fewer children because of tuition costs."
About 200,000 students attend more than 700 Jewish day schools in the United States. Tuitions at the schools average about $14,000 and in the past five years have typically increased about 7% per year, outpacing wage increases for most families, Zucker said.
The most radical of Zucker's proposals would create alternative schools that would charge reduced fees of about $6,500 annually but operate with larger class sizes, scaled-down computer labs and no extracurricular activities unless staffed by volunteers.
Zucker acknowledged concerns about creating a two-tier system but predicted that parents would go along if it were a choice between a basic Jewish education or public schools.
In Los Angeles, 36 Jewish day schools serve about 10,000 students, according to the Bureau of Jewish Education of Greater Los Angeles. About 40% of Jewish day students in Los Angeles receive financial aid, a number expected to grow even as philanthropic dollars for some schools decrease.
"While there are a handful of philanthropists who heavily support their favorite Jewish institution, until Jewish education becomes more of a priority for the larger Jewish community, we will have this crisis," said Rabbi Moshe Dear, head of school at Yeshivat Yavneh.
His school, which charges $15,000 in annual tuition, is offering delayed payment plans. But Dear said he has heard that some parents are considering home schooling to save money.
Jewish schools are suffering many of the same economic pressures as secular prep schools and parochial campuses, but many shoulder the added expense of a religious-training curriculum that requires additional staff.
Orthodox families also tend to be larger than many others, which contributes to a heavier tuition burden, Dear and others said. And most consider a Jewish education -- with its emphasis on religious traditions -- indispensable.
That is the case for parents Gil and Iris Harel, who have two children attending Hillel, another at a local Jewish high school and a son in college.
But it has been a financial struggle to keep their children in school. Family vacations, investments, choice of vehicles and day-to-day purchases such as clothing have been affected as the "uncertainty of the economy harms everyone," said Gil Harel, a specialized general contractor.
Meanwhile, there will probably be more scenarios like that in Rancho Santa Margarita, where Morasha Jewish Day School, a pre-kindergarten-through-sixth-grade campus with 60 students, is closing after 23 years.
Even though the school expected to increase enrollment next year, it could not close a $200,000 deficit, said head of school Eve Fein. Morasha lost 15 families this year and had trouble selling two acres of property when the real estate market crashed.
"We had over 50% of our students on tuition assistance and were happy to be able to do so because we didn't want Jewish education to be just for the elite or rich," Fein said. "But it caught up with us."
Found money: L.A. council close to compromise on LAPD [Updated]
threatened cut to the ranks of the Los Angeles Police Department apparently will be averted in a compromise reached by members of the City Council.
The council has been considering a police hiring freeze as one way to reach the $530 million in cuts needed to close the city’s looming budget shortfall.
Over the weekend, however, aides to the council and Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa said they found enough money to hire replacements for up to 480 of the 520 officers who typically leave each year through retirements and such. Apparently, the city’s share of property taxes next year will be $20 million greater than expected, and $4 million provided by the federal government could also be used to hire officers. Plus, the council may decide to use some of the $18 million held in city reserves.
The money will only allow the city to maintain close to its current level of police staffing. It won’t be enough for Villaraigosa to continue his goal to grow the Police Department by 1,000 officers, one of the top priorities of his administration.
The council is expected to vote on the compromise this evening.
-- Phil Willon
A threatened cut to the ranks of the Los Angeles Police Department apparently will be averted in a compromise reached between the City Council and Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa.
The council has been considering a police hiring freeze as one way to reach the $530 million in cuts needed to close the city’s looming budget shortfall.
Over the weekend, however, aides to the council and mayor said they found enough money to hire replacements for up to 480 of the 520 officers who typically leave each year through retirements and such. Apparently, the city’s share of property taxes next year will be $20 million greater than expected, and $4 million provided by the federal government could also be used to hire officers. Plus, the council may decide to use some of the $18 million held in city reserves.
The money will only allow the city to maintain close to its current level of police staffing. It won’t be enough for Villaraigosa to continue his goal to grow the Police Department by 1,000 officers, one of the top priorities of his administration.
The council is expected to vote on the compromise this evening
The council has been considering a police hiring freeze as one way to reach the $530 million in cuts needed to close the city’s looming budget shortfall.
Over the weekend, however, aides to the council and Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa said they found enough money to hire replacements for up to 480 of the 520 officers who typically leave each year through retirements and such. Apparently, the city’s share of property taxes next year will be $20 million greater than expected, and $4 million provided by the federal government could also be used to hire officers. Plus, the council may decide to use some of the $18 million held in city reserves.
The money will only allow the city to maintain close to its current level of police staffing. It won’t be enough for Villaraigosa to continue his goal to grow the Police Department by 1,000 officers, one of the top priorities of his administration.
The council is expected to vote on the compromise this evening.
-- Phil Willon
A threatened cut to the ranks of the Los Angeles Police Department apparently will be averted in a compromise reached between the City Council and Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa.
The council has been considering a police hiring freeze as one way to reach the $530 million in cuts needed to close the city’s looming budget shortfall.
Over the weekend, however, aides to the council and mayor said they found enough money to hire replacements for up to 480 of the 520 officers who typically leave each year through retirements and such. Apparently, the city’s share of property taxes next year will be $20 million greater than expected, and $4 million provided by the federal government could also be used to hire officers. Plus, the council may decide to use some of the $18 million held in city reserves.
The money will only allow the city to maintain close to its current level of police staffing. It won’t be enough for Villaraigosa to continue his goal to grow the Police Department by 1,000 officers, one of the top priorities of his administration.
The council is expected to vote on the compromise this evening
Bank Stocks Help Rally the Markets
Wall Street’s recent buying spree, interrupted last week, revved up again on Monday.
Traders seized on last week’s stock declines as a chance to get back in at lower prices, and they pushed shares of financial firms sharply higher. Rising oil prices lifted energy producers, and a better than-expected profit at the home improvement chain Lowe’s helped to bolster consumer stocks.
At the close, the Dow Jones industrial average was up 235.44 points or 2.8 percent, at 8,504.08. The broader Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index rose 26.83 points, or 3 percent, to close at 909.71, while the Nasdaq was up 52.22 points, 3.1 percent, at 1,732.36. Last week the Dow fell 3.6 percent and the S.&P. 500 skidded 5 percent.
Shares of Bank of America were up nearly 10 percent at $11.73 after analysts at Goldman Sachs named the company a “conviction buy.” The financial services provider Corporation rose 8.5 percent after announcing that it would raise more than $1 billion in stock and debt not backed up by the government’s liquidity-guarantee program as it seeks to repay its bailout funds.
Bailout recipients like Wells Fargo and Morgan Stanley have been raising new unsecured capital in recent weeks, intending to get out of the government’s Troubled Asset Relief Program.
Weaker retail sales helped to stifle some of the momentum of Wall Street’s recent rally last week, raising concerns that talk of economic hope and “green shoots” of recovery could be overblown. But on Monday, many investors used the market dip as an excuse to buy.
“The pullback last week created a little bit of breathing room, and buyers might be more apt to step in at these levels,” said Todd Salamone, senior vice president of research at Schaeffer’s Investment Research.
Shares of Lowe’s, the home improvement chain, rose 8.1 percent to $19.94 after it reported lower earnings that nevertheless beat analysts’ expectations, and rival Home Depot ended up 6.6 percent at $26.02. The results warmed hopes that wary consumers would come out of hibernation this spring and take on building projects and home renovations, breathing some life into the construction and home-improvement industries.
Also, the National Association of Home Builders said its index of builder confidence in the housing market rose in May, ticking up to 16 points from 14 last month. Shares of large home builders like Toll Brothers, Pulte Homes and Centex paced the broader markets.
Other retailers also gained ground after sliding last week. Shares of Wal-Mart Stores were 3.7 percent higher at $49.92, and department stores including Macy’s, Kohl’s and J. C. Penney were all higher.
Although stock markets have surged more than 30 percent from their 12-year lows set in early March, some analysts warn that investors seem to be betting on a quick economic recovery, one that may not materialize.
“That’s going to be quite difficult,” said John Brady, a senior vice president at MF Global. “Unemployment is going to move higher, and consumers are going to continue to increase savings.”
Interest rates were slightly higher. The Treasury’s benchmark 10-year note fell 26/32, to 99 3/32, and the yield, which moves in the opposite direction from the price, was 3.23 percent, up from 3.13 percent late Friday.
Following are the results of Monday’s Treasury auction of three- and six-month bills:
Traders seized on last week’s stock declines as a chance to get back in at lower prices, and they pushed shares of financial firms sharply higher. Rising oil prices lifted energy producers, and a better than-expected profit at the home improvement chain Lowe’s helped to bolster consumer stocks.
At the close, the Dow Jones industrial average was up 235.44 points or 2.8 percent, at 8,504.08. The broader Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index rose 26.83 points, or 3 percent, to close at 909.71, while the Nasdaq was up 52.22 points, 3.1 percent, at 1,732.36. Last week the Dow fell 3.6 percent and the S.&P. 500 skidded 5 percent.
Shares of Bank of America were up nearly 10 percent at $11.73 after analysts at Goldman Sachs named the company a “conviction buy.” The financial services provider Corporation rose 8.5 percent after announcing that it would raise more than $1 billion in stock and debt not backed up by the government’s liquidity-guarantee program as it seeks to repay its bailout funds.
Bailout recipients like Wells Fargo and Morgan Stanley have been raising new unsecured capital in recent weeks, intending to get out of the government’s Troubled Asset Relief Program.
Weaker retail sales helped to stifle some of the momentum of Wall Street’s recent rally last week, raising concerns that talk of economic hope and “green shoots” of recovery could be overblown. But on Monday, many investors used the market dip as an excuse to buy.
“The pullback last week created a little bit of breathing room, and buyers might be more apt to step in at these levels,” said Todd Salamone, senior vice president of research at Schaeffer’s Investment Research.
Shares of Lowe’s, the home improvement chain, rose 8.1 percent to $19.94 after it reported lower earnings that nevertheless beat analysts’ expectations, and rival Home Depot ended up 6.6 percent at $26.02. The results warmed hopes that wary consumers would come out of hibernation this spring and take on building projects and home renovations, breathing some life into the construction and home-improvement industries.
Also, the National Association of Home Builders said its index of builder confidence in the housing market rose in May, ticking up to 16 points from 14 last month. Shares of large home builders like Toll Brothers, Pulte Homes and Centex paced the broader markets.
Other retailers also gained ground after sliding last week. Shares of Wal-Mart Stores were 3.7 percent higher at $49.92, and department stores including Macy’s, Kohl’s and J. C. Penney were all higher.
Although stock markets have surged more than 30 percent from their 12-year lows set in early March, some analysts warn that investors seem to be betting on a quick economic recovery, one that may not materialize.
“That’s going to be quite difficult,” said John Brady, a senior vice president at MF Global. “Unemployment is going to move higher, and consumers are going to continue to increase savings.”
Interest rates were slightly higher. The Treasury’s benchmark 10-year note fell 26/32, to 99 3/32, and the yield, which moves in the opposite direction from the price, was 3.23 percent, up from 3.13 percent late Friday.
Following are the results of Monday’s Treasury auction of three- and six-month bills:
In Advising U.S., BlackRock Thrives in Uncertain Time
The financial crisis has ravaged many a Wall Street giant, but it has also produced a handful of winners. BlackRock, a money manager that is much admired but little known outside financial circles, is fast emerging as one of the nation’s financial powerhouses.
BlackRock, which started in a one-room office 21 years ago, now manages $1.3 trillion in assets for big private clients, including hedge funds and foreign governments.
But it is the company’s highly prized role as a government adviser and contractor that is now drawing attention.
By dint of its expertise and track record, it has won contracts to help the government manage the complex rescues of Bear Stearns, the American International Group and Citigroup.
It also won a bid to carry out a Federal Reserve program to stimulate the moribund housing market, and it has been hired to help evaluate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-created mortgage finance giants.
Other firms have been hired by the government to assist with the bailout, illustrating the increasingly symbiotic relationship between Washington and Wall Street.
It makes sense for the government to turn to financial experts for help, but BlackRock has become so ubiquitous that some lawmakers, federal auditors and watchdog groups are now asking if the firm does too much, and if its roles as government adviser, giant federal contractor and private money manager will inevitably collide.
Can a company that is being paid to price and sell troubled assets for the government buy the same kinds of assets for private clients without showing preference? And should the government seek counsel from a company whose clients stand to make or lose billions if those policies are enacted?
“They have access to information when the Federal Reserve will try to sell securities, and what price they will accept. And they have intricate financial relations with people across the globe,” Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, said. “The potential for a conflict of interest is great and it is just very difficult to police.”
Without naming BlackRock, federal auditors have warned that any private parties that purchase distressed assets on the government’s behalf could use generous federal subsidies to overpay, artificially pushing up the price of similar assets that they manage for their own portfolios.
“In other words, the conflict results in an enormous profit for the fund manager at the expense of the taxpayer,” Neil M. Barofsky, the special inspector general for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, wrote in a report last month.
Some of BlackRock’s advice to the government has in fact helped the company. For example, in its role as an informal adviser, it urged the Fed to intervene in the markets in a way that made investors feel it was safe to put money back into money market funds, including BlackRock’s.
The Federal Reserve will not reveal what it is paying BlackRock, disclosing only that on one of its five contracts, it will pay at least $71 million over three years to BlackRock and other firms to manage a portfolio of mortgage assets once owned by Bear Stearns. BlackRock says that rate is discounted and that the fees it collects on bailout-related work are only a tiny portion of its overall revenue.
BlackRock has many admirers for the range and the quality of services it has provided to the federal government. James R. Wilkinson, who served until January as the chief of staff to the former Treasury secretary, Henry M. Paulson Jr., described BlackRock’s co-founder and chief executive, Laurence D. Fink, as a “patriot.”
He added, “He is willing to help our country when we need it most.”
Mr. Fink said he was proud that his company was helping pull the economy back from the brink, and he bristled at the suggestion of impropriety.
Treasury and Fed officials have begun to take precautions. BlackRock’s dominance has prompted the Fed to seek an alternative partner as it prepares to expand its rescue efforts, a government official close to the situation said, requesting anonymity because the actions could affect the market.
And Treasury is holding off announcing the winning bidders for perhaps the most anticipated of all the bailout programs — the $1 trillion federally subsidized plan to purchase troubled assets from banks — in part to make sure the bidders cannot game the system. BlackRock is widely expected to win one of the contracts, in which the government would be a partner with private firms.
Andrew Williams, a Treasury Department spokesman, said that BlackRock had no special status and was among a large group of industry players consulted about bailout programs.
“We take this very seriously,” Mr. Williams said. “We talk to a lot of people — as we should.”
Now 47 percent owned by Bank of America, BlackRock offers traditional services like managing other people’s money. But the unit that has grabbed most of the attention lately is BlackRock Solutions, whose sophisticated software, fine-tuned over many years, can take apart the thousands of loans in a mortgage-backed security to estimate what it is now worth and what it will most likely be worth in the future, helping investors decide whether to hold or sell the asset.
During one frantic weekend in March 2008, when Bear Stearns was collapsing, BlackRock’s omnipresence became evident.
On a Saturday, the firm was hired by JPMorgan Chase — which was considering buying Bear Stearns — to value one type of Bear Stearns security.
The next day the Federal Reserve hired BlackRock, through a no-bid contract, to analyze and eventually sell off a $30 billion pool of risky mortgage securities that JPMorgan did not want.
BlackRock, which started in a one-room office 21 years ago, now manages $1.3 trillion in assets for big private clients, including hedge funds and foreign governments.
But it is the company’s highly prized role as a government adviser and contractor that is now drawing attention.
By dint of its expertise and track record, it has won contracts to help the government manage the complex rescues of Bear Stearns, the American International Group and Citigroup.
It also won a bid to carry out a Federal Reserve program to stimulate the moribund housing market, and it has been hired to help evaluate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-created mortgage finance giants.
Other firms have been hired by the government to assist with the bailout, illustrating the increasingly symbiotic relationship between Washington and Wall Street.
It makes sense for the government to turn to financial experts for help, but BlackRock has become so ubiquitous that some lawmakers, federal auditors and watchdog groups are now asking if the firm does too much, and if its roles as government adviser, giant federal contractor and private money manager will inevitably collide.
Can a company that is being paid to price and sell troubled assets for the government buy the same kinds of assets for private clients without showing preference? And should the government seek counsel from a company whose clients stand to make or lose billions if those policies are enacted?
“They have access to information when the Federal Reserve will try to sell securities, and what price they will accept. And they have intricate financial relations with people across the globe,” Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, said. “The potential for a conflict of interest is great and it is just very difficult to police.”
Without naming BlackRock, federal auditors have warned that any private parties that purchase distressed assets on the government’s behalf could use generous federal subsidies to overpay, artificially pushing up the price of similar assets that they manage for their own portfolios.
“In other words, the conflict results in an enormous profit for the fund manager at the expense of the taxpayer,” Neil M. Barofsky, the special inspector general for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, wrote in a report last month.
Some of BlackRock’s advice to the government has in fact helped the company. For example, in its role as an informal adviser, it urged the Fed to intervene in the markets in a way that made investors feel it was safe to put money back into money market funds, including BlackRock’s.
The Federal Reserve will not reveal what it is paying BlackRock, disclosing only that on one of its five contracts, it will pay at least $71 million over three years to BlackRock and other firms to manage a portfolio of mortgage assets once owned by Bear Stearns. BlackRock says that rate is discounted and that the fees it collects on bailout-related work are only a tiny portion of its overall revenue.
BlackRock has many admirers for the range and the quality of services it has provided to the federal government. James R. Wilkinson, who served until January as the chief of staff to the former Treasury secretary, Henry M. Paulson Jr., described BlackRock’s co-founder and chief executive, Laurence D. Fink, as a “patriot.”
He added, “He is willing to help our country when we need it most.”
Mr. Fink said he was proud that his company was helping pull the economy back from the brink, and he bristled at the suggestion of impropriety.
Treasury and Fed officials have begun to take precautions. BlackRock’s dominance has prompted the Fed to seek an alternative partner as it prepares to expand its rescue efforts, a government official close to the situation said, requesting anonymity because the actions could affect the market.
And Treasury is holding off announcing the winning bidders for perhaps the most anticipated of all the bailout programs — the $1 trillion federally subsidized plan to purchase troubled assets from banks — in part to make sure the bidders cannot game the system. BlackRock is widely expected to win one of the contracts, in which the government would be a partner with private firms.
Andrew Williams, a Treasury Department spokesman, said that BlackRock had no special status and was among a large group of industry players consulted about bailout programs.
“We take this very seriously,” Mr. Williams said. “We talk to a lot of people — as we should.”
Now 47 percent owned by Bank of America, BlackRock offers traditional services like managing other people’s money. But the unit that has grabbed most of the attention lately is BlackRock Solutions, whose sophisticated software, fine-tuned over many years, can take apart the thousands of loans in a mortgage-backed security to estimate what it is now worth and what it will most likely be worth in the future, helping investors decide whether to hold or sell the asset.
During one frantic weekend in March 2008, when Bear Stearns was collapsing, BlackRock’s omnipresence became evident.
On a Saturday, the firm was hired by JPMorgan Chase — which was considering buying Bear Stearns — to value one type of Bear Stearns security.
The next day the Federal Reserve hired BlackRock, through a no-bid contract, to analyze and eventually sell off a $30 billion pool of risky mortgage securities that JPMorgan did not want.
Those multiple roles created the potential for conflict, BlackRock’s own executives acknowledge. The company would be trying to sell assets on behalf of the government that were similar to assets it buys and sells for thousands of other private investors.
For example, if BlackRock Solutions signaled to BlackRock’s asset managers the timing of a planned sale, that could benefit BlackRock’s investors, but harm taxpayers and the Federal Reserve.
“We were very sensitive to it,” said Mark Wiedman, a managing director at BlackRock Solutions.
To avoid this, BlackRock Solutions and BlackRock asset management employees are housed in separate buildings, working on separate computer networks. The firm also sells the Bear Stearns securities only through an independent broker, meaning BlackRock does not know who the buyers are. The Fed, in addition, has prohibited BlackRock from knowingly buying any of the Fed-controlled assets.
But some remain skeptical that such firewalls really protect taxpayers.
“How can one company have so much control over the process?” said Scott Amey, general counsel at the Project on Government Oversight, a Washington-based non-profit group. “Isn’t there somebody else they can turn to?”
The concerns about BlackRock also extend to its role as an informal adviser. Mr. Fink has been known to call Treasury officials several times a day, Bush and Obama administration officials said, between occasional visits.
Last fall Mr. Fink urged the Fed to take action to unlock the frozen market for short-term lending to companies — a business that BlackRock’s money market mutual funds played a major role in. Investors had withdrawn $48 billion from those BlackRock funds, but once the Fed adopted the policy Mr. Fink was advocating, the money came pouring back.
Mr. Fink said his advice was for the good of the economy, and that his was one of many industry voices calling for such a move.
Still, Mr. Fink has not been shy in boasting about his access. “I mean it is a great seal of approval,” Mr. Fink told Wall Street analysts in December, as he simultaneously coached the Bush administration and the incoming Obama team. “We are asked to help navigate new policy. I’m running out of here to go meet with Treasury to talk about plans later this afternoon.”
But it is clear that the income from fees is a lesser benefit than the buffing of its global reputation, a point Mr. Fink has made. “It gives comfort to our clients that we are being involved in some of the solutions of our economy, and it allows us to show our clients that we are being asked in these difficult situations to provide advice,” he said at the same event.
BlackRock has not been immune to market turmoil, but its stock over the last year has held up better than its peers’. While BlackRock’s share price tumbled 33 percent, Federated Investors shares have lost 34 percent and Legg Mason, 65 percent. BlackRock ended 2008, a disastrous year for Wall Street, with $786 million in profit on $5 billion in revenue.
Some lawmakers remain wary, even though they cannot cite any specific impropriety. “The very nature of what we are asking them to do almost guarantees that it is going to be to the benefit of BlackRock,” said Representative Darrell Issa of California, the ranking Republican on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. “You can have separate pews, but if you go to the same church, it will cross over
BlackRock, which started in a one-room office 21 years ago, now manages $1.3 trillion in assets for big private clients, including hedge funds and foreign governments.
But it is the company’s highly prized role as a government adviser and contractor that is now drawing attention.
By dint of its expertise and track record, it has won contracts to help the government manage the complex rescues of Bear Stearns, the American International Group and Citigroup.
It also won a bid to carry out a Federal Reserve program to stimulate the moribund housing market, and it has been hired to help evaluate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-created mortgage finance giants.
Other firms have been hired by the government to assist with the bailout, illustrating the increasingly symbiotic relationship between Washington and Wall Street.
It makes sense for the government to turn to financial experts for help, but BlackRock has become so ubiquitous that some lawmakers, federal auditors and watchdog groups are now asking if the firm does too much, and if its roles as government adviser, giant federal contractor and private money manager will inevitably collide.
Can a company that is being paid to price and sell troubled assets for the government buy the same kinds of assets for private clients without showing preference? And should the government seek counsel from a company whose clients stand to make or lose billions if those policies are enacted?
“They have access to information when the Federal Reserve will try to sell securities, and what price they will accept. And they have intricate financial relations with people across the globe,” Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, said. “The potential for a conflict of interest is great and it is just very difficult to police.”
Without naming BlackRock, federal auditors have warned that any private parties that purchase distressed assets on the government’s behalf could use generous federal subsidies to overpay, artificially pushing up the price of similar assets that they manage for their own portfolios.
“In other words, the conflict results in an enormous profit for the fund manager at the expense of the taxpayer,” Neil M. Barofsky, the special inspector general for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, wrote in a report last month.
Some of BlackRock’s advice to the government has in fact helped the company. For example, in its role as an informal adviser, it urged the Fed to intervene in the markets in a way that made investors feel it was safe to put money back into money market funds, including BlackRock’s.
The Federal Reserve will not reveal what it is paying BlackRock, disclosing only that on one of its five contracts, it will pay at least $71 million over three years to BlackRock and other firms to manage a portfolio of mortgage assets once owned by Bear Stearns. BlackRock says that rate is discounted and that the fees it collects on bailout-related work are only a tiny portion of its overall revenue.
BlackRock has many admirers for the range and the quality of services it has provided to the federal government. James R. Wilkinson, who served until January as the chief of staff to the former Treasury secretary, Henry M. Paulson Jr., described BlackRock’s co-founder and chief executive, Laurence D. Fink, as a “patriot.”
He added, “He is willing to help our country when we need it most.”
Mr. Fink said he was proud that his company was helping pull the economy back from the brink, and he bristled at the suggestion of impropriety.
Treasury and Fed officials have begun to take precautions. BlackRock’s dominance has prompted the Fed to seek an alternative partner as it prepares to expand its rescue efforts, a government official close to the situation said, requesting anonymity because the actions could affect the market.
And Treasury is holding off announcing the winning bidders for perhaps the most anticipated of all the bailout programs — the $1 trillion federally subsidized plan to purchase troubled assets from banks — in part to make sure the bidders cannot game the system. BlackRock is widely expected to win one of the contracts, in which the government would be a partner with private firms.
Andrew Williams, a Treasury Department spokesman, said that BlackRock had no special status and was among a large group of industry players consulted about bailout programs.
“We take this very seriously,” Mr. Williams said. “We talk to a lot of people — as we should.”
Now 47 percent owned by Bank of America, BlackRock offers traditional services like managing other people’s money. But the unit that has grabbed most of the attention lately is BlackRock Solutions, whose sophisticated software, fine-tuned over many years, can take apart the thousands of loans in a mortgage-backed security to estimate what it is now worth and what it will most likely be worth in the future, helping investors decide whether to hold or sell the asset.
During one frantic weekend in March 2008, when Bear Stearns was collapsing, BlackRock’s omnipresence became evident.
On a Saturday, the firm was hired by JPMorgan Chase — which was considering buying Bear Stearns — to value one type of Bear Stearns security.
The next day the Federal Reserve hired BlackRock, through a no-bid contract, to analyze and eventually sell off a $30 billion pool of risky mortgage securities that JPMorgan did not want.
BlackRock, which started in a one-room office 21 years ago, now manages $1.3 trillion in assets for big private clients, including hedge funds and foreign governments.
But it is the company’s highly prized role as a government adviser and contractor that is now drawing attention.
By dint of its expertise and track record, it has won contracts to help the government manage the complex rescues of Bear Stearns, the American International Group and Citigroup.
It also won a bid to carry out a Federal Reserve program to stimulate the moribund housing market, and it has been hired to help evaluate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government-created mortgage finance giants.
Other firms have been hired by the government to assist with the bailout, illustrating the increasingly symbiotic relationship between Washington and Wall Street.
It makes sense for the government to turn to financial experts for help, but BlackRock has become so ubiquitous that some lawmakers, federal auditors and watchdog groups are now asking if the firm does too much, and if its roles as government adviser, giant federal contractor and private money manager will inevitably collide.
Can a company that is being paid to price and sell troubled assets for the government buy the same kinds of assets for private clients without showing preference? And should the government seek counsel from a company whose clients stand to make or lose billions if those policies are enacted?
“They have access to information when the Federal Reserve will try to sell securities, and what price they will accept. And they have intricate financial relations with people across the globe,” Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, said. “The potential for a conflict of interest is great and it is just very difficult to police.”
Without naming BlackRock, federal auditors have warned that any private parties that purchase distressed assets on the government’s behalf could use generous federal subsidies to overpay, artificially pushing up the price of similar assets that they manage for their own portfolios.
“In other words, the conflict results in an enormous profit for the fund manager at the expense of the taxpayer,” Neil M. Barofsky, the special inspector general for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, wrote in a report last month.
Some of BlackRock’s advice to the government has in fact helped the company. For example, in its role as an informal adviser, it urged the Fed to intervene in the markets in a way that made investors feel it was safe to put money back into money market funds, including BlackRock’s.
The Federal Reserve will not reveal what it is paying BlackRock, disclosing only that on one of its five contracts, it will pay at least $71 million over three years to BlackRock and other firms to manage a portfolio of mortgage assets once owned by Bear Stearns. BlackRock says that rate is discounted and that the fees it collects on bailout-related work are only a tiny portion of its overall revenue.
BlackRock has many admirers for the range and the quality of services it has provided to the federal government. James R. Wilkinson, who served until January as the chief of staff to the former Treasury secretary, Henry M. Paulson Jr., described BlackRock’s co-founder and chief executive, Laurence D. Fink, as a “patriot.”
He added, “He is willing to help our country when we need it most.”
Mr. Fink said he was proud that his company was helping pull the economy back from the brink, and he bristled at the suggestion of impropriety.
Treasury and Fed officials have begun to take precautions. BlackRock’s dominance has prompted the Fed to seek an alternative partner as it prepares to expand its rescue efforts, a government official close to the situation said, requesting anonymity because the actions could affect the market.
And Treasury is holding off announcing the winning bidders for perhaps the most anticipated of all the bailout programs — the $1 trillion federally subsidized plan to purchase troubled assets from banks — in part to make sure the bidders cannot game the system. BlackRock is widely expected to win one of the contracts, in which the government would be a partner with private firms.
Andrew Williams, a Treasury Department spokesman, said that BlackRock had no special status and was among a large group of industry players consulted about bailout programs.
“We take this very seriously,” Mr. Williams said. “We talk to a lot of people — as we should.”
Now 47 percent owned by Bank of America, BlackRock offers traditional services like managing other people’s money. But the unit that has grabbed most of the attention lately is BlackRock Solutions, whose sophisticated software, fine-tuned over many years, can take apart the thousands of loans in a mortgage-backed security to estimate what it is now worth and what it will most likely be worth in the future, helping investors decide whether to hold or sell the asset.
During one frantic weekend in March 2008, when Bear Stearns was collapsing, BlackRock’s omnipresence became evident.
On a Saturday, the firm was hired by JPMorgan Chase — which was considering buying Bear Stearns — to value one type of Bear Stearns security.
The next day the Federal Reserve hired BlackRock, through a no-bid contract, to analyze and eventually sell off a $30 billion pool of risky mortgage securities that JPMorgan did not want.
Those multiple roles created the potential for conflict, BlackRock’s own executives acknowledge. The company would be trying to sell assets on behalf of the government that were similar to assets it buys and sells for thousands of other private investors.
For example, if BlackRock Solutions signaled to BlackRock’s asset managers the timing of a planned sale, that could benefit BlackRock’s investors, but harm taxpayers and the Federal Reserve.
“We were very sensitive to it,” said Mark Wiedman, a managing director at BlackRock Solutions.
To avoid this, BlackRock Solutions and BlackRock asset management employees are housed in separate buildings, working on separate computer networks. The firm also sells the Bear Stearns securities only through an independent broker, meaning BlackRock does not know who the buyers are. The Fed, in addition, has prohibited BlackRock from knowingly buying any of the Fed-controlled assets.
But some remain skeptical that such firewalls really protect taxpayers.
“How can one company have so much control over the process?” said Scott Amey, general counsel at the Project on Government Oversight, a Washington-based non-profit group. “Isn’t there somebody else they can turn to?”
The concerns about BlackRock also extend to its role as an informal adviser. Mr. Fink has been known to call Treasury officials several times a day, Bush and Obama administration officials said, between occasional visits.
Last fall Mr. Fink urged the Fed to take action to unlock the frozen market for short-term lending to companies — a business that BlackRock’s money market mutual funds played a major role in. Investors had withdrawn $48 billion from those BlackRock funds, but once the Fed adopted the policy Mr. Fink was advocating, the money came pouring back.
Mr. Fink said his advice was for the good of the economy, and that his was one of many industry voices calling for such a move.
Still, Mr. Fink has not been shy in boasting about his access. “I mean it is a great seal of approval,” Mr. Fink told Wall Street analysts in December, as he simultaneously coached the Bush administration and the incoming Obama team. “We are asked to help navigate new policy. I’m running out of here to go meet with Treasury to talk about plans later this afternoon.”
But it is clear that the income from fees is a lesser benefit than the buffing of its global reputation, a point Mr. Fink has made. “It gives comfort to our clients that we are being involved in some of the solutions of our economy, and it allows us to show our clients that we are being asked in these difficult situations to provide advice,” he said at the same event.
BlackRock has not been immune to market turmoil, but its stock over the last year has held up better than its peers’. While BlackRock’s share price tumbled 33 percent, Federated Investors shares have lost 34 percent and Legg Mason, 65 percent. BlackRock ended 2008, a disastrous year for Wall Street, with $786 million in profit on $5 billion in revenue.
Some lawmakers remain wary, even though they cannot cite any specific impropriety. “The very nature of what we are asking them to do almost guarantees that it is going to be to the benefit of BlackRock,” said Representative Darrell Issa of California, the ranking Republican on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. “You can have separate pews, but if you go to the same church, it will cross over
Ex-U.S. Envoy in Talks for Key Role in Afghan Government
Zalmay Khalilzad, who was President George W. Bush’s ambassador to Afghanistan, could assume a powerful, unelected position inside the Afghan government under a plan he is discussing with Hamid Karzai, the Afghan president, according to senior American and Afghan officials.
Mr. Khalilzad, an American citizen who was born in Afghanistan, had considered challenging Mr. Karzai for the presidency in elections scheduled for this summer.
But Mr. Khalilzad missed the May 8 filing deadline, and the American and Afghan officials say that he has been talking with Mr. Karzai for several weeks about taking on a job that the two have described as the chief executive officer of Afghanistan.
Such an alliance would benefit Mr. Karzai by co-opting a potential rival. For its part, the White House has made no secret of its growing disenchantment with Mr. Karzai, and some Afghanistan experts said that enlisting Mr. Khalilzad would have the virtue of bringing a strong, competent leader into an increasingly dysfunctional Afghan government.
The position would allow Mr. Khalilzad to serve as “a prime minister, except not prime minister because he wouldn’t be responsible to a parliamentary system,” a senior Obama administration official said. Taking the unelected position would also allow Mr. Khalilzad to keep his American citizenship.
Administration officials insisted that the United States was not behind the idea of enlisting Mr. Khalilzad to serve in the Afghan government, and they gave no further details on what his duties might be.
They said that Mr. Karzai had sought out Mr. Khalilzad, but that the idea of enlisting a chief executive had also been raised by Gordon Brown, the British prime minister.
American and British officials expressed concern that any belief that the West was behind the plan would harm its chances inside Afghanistan. They spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter publicly.
“This has the makings of a really bad movie,” said Teresita C. Schaffer, a South Asia expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.
“The idea of having an American as a major senior official of Afghanistan is a very risky one both for the Afghan government and the person in question.”
But, she added: “Whoever is going to run Afghanistan will have to have both feet on the ground there, and I know Zal has intimate knowledge of the country and was involved to a degree that was virtually unheard of for an ambassador.”
Mr. Khalilzad met with Mr. Karzai about the job when Mr. Karzai visited Washington two weeks ago, and they discussed the proposal then.
Mr. Khalilzad then flew to Kabul, the country’s capital, several days ago to continue talks with Mr. Karzai, whose re-election campaign comes at a time when security in Afghanistan is deteriorating.
During his visit to Washington, Mr. Karzai also outlined his plan to Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Richard C. Holbrooke, the special representative to the region, the officials said.
Administration officials say that President Obama, Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Holbrooke all told Mr. Karzai that it was up to him and Mr. Khalilzad to decide whether to proceed.
A plan that puts Mr. Khalilzad near the top of a Karzai government would provide the Obama administration with a strong conduit to push American interests in Afghanistan, particularly in cracking down on corruption and the drug trade, which American officials say has helped to fuel the resurgence of the Taliban.
While Mr. Khalilzad served in the Bush administration — including as ambassador to Iraq and the United Nations — he has maintained ties with the Obama administration, as well, and has twice been to the State Department to meet with Mr. Holbrooke.
Mr. Khalilzad could not be reached for comment on Monday.
Mr. Karzai has already successfully defused the candidacies of other potential rivals for the presidency.
One of them, Gul Agha Shirzai, the popular governor of Nangarhar Province, announced after a four-hour meeting with Mr. Karzai that he was pulling out of the presidential race.
Another, Muhammad Qasim Fahim, a former warlord who later became defense minister, was identified by Mr. Karzai as one of two vice-presidential running mates, in a move widely interpreted as an attempt to bolster Mr. Karzai’s standing among former mujahedeen parties.
Kai Eide, the United Nations special representative to Afghanistan, criticized the choice of Mr. Fahim because of human rights concerns.
It remains unclear whether Mr. Karzai and Mr. Khalilzad can strike a deal on an alliance, the American and Afghan officials said.
Several of Mr. Karzai’s own ministers have opposed such a pact, they said, and it is not certain whether Mr. Karzai remains willing to bring Mr. Khalilzad aboard now that the filing deadline for presidential candidates has passed.
Mr. Karzai and Mr. Khalilzad have had a long and sometimes bumpy relationship. They worked closely when Mr. Khalilzad was ambassador to Afghanistan, from 2003 to 2005, and Mr. Karzai, the new president of a fledgling democracy, was viewed as a darling of the West.
But as the United States and Britain have become increasingly disenchanted with Mr. Karzai amid widespread corruption allegations, the two men have also put some distance between themselves, which expanded further as Mr. Khalilzad began to make plans to run against Mr. Karzai for president.
While he was working for the Bush administration, Mr. Khalilzad often brushed up against other officials, including Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
He got in trouble for appearing on a panel with Iran’s foreign minister without getting permission from the White House first. And he annoyed State Department officials when he arranged to meet in Dubai with Asif Ali Zardari to talk about Mr. Zardari’s bid for the presidency of Pakistan, just when the United States was trying to convince Pakistanis that America was not interfering in their internal politics.
Mr. Khalilzad, an American citizen who was born in Afghanistan, had considered challenging Mr. Karzai for the presidency in elections scheduled for this summer.
But Mr. Khalilzad missed the May 8 filing deadline, and the American and Afghan officials say that he has been talking with Mr. Karzai for several weeks about taking on a job that the two have described as the chief executive officer of Afghanistan.
Such an alliance would benefit Mr. Karzai by co-opting a potential rival. For its part, the White House has made no secret of its growing disenchantment with Mr. Karzai, and some Afghanistan experts said that enlisting Mr. Khalilzad would have the virtue of bringing a strong, competent leader into an increasingly dysfunctional Afghan government.
The position would allow Mr. Khalilzad to serve as “a prime minister, except not prime minister because he wouldn’t be responsible to a parliamentary system,” a senior Obama administration official said. Taking the unelected position would also allow Mr. Khalilzad to keep his American citizenship.
Administration officials insisted that the United States was not behind the idea of enlisting Mr. Khalilzad to serve in the Afghan government, and they gave no further details on what his duties might be.
They said that Mr. Karzai had sought out Mr. Khalilzad, but that the idea of enlisting a chief executive had also been raised by Gordon Brown, the British prime minister.
American and British officials expressed concern that any belief that the West was behind the plan would harm its chances inside Afghanistan. They spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the matter publicly.
“This has the makings of a really bad movie,” said Teresita C. Schaffer, a South Asia expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.
“The idea of having an American as a major senior official of Afghanistan is a very risky one both for the Afghan government and the person in question.”
But, she added: “Whoever is going to run Afghanistan will have to have both feet on the ground there, and I know Zal has intimate knowledge of the country and was involved to a degree that was virtually unheard of for an ambassador.”
Mr. Khalilzad met with Mr. Karzai about the job when Mr. Karzai visited Washington two weeks ago, and they discussed the proposal then.
Mr. Khalilzad then flew to Kabul, the country’s capital, several days ago to continue talks with Mr. Karzai, whose re-election campaign comes at a time when security in Afghanistan is deteriorating.
During his visit to Washington, Mr. Karzai also outlined his plan to Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Richard C. Holbrooke, the special representative to the region, the officials said.
Administration officials say that President Obama, Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Holbrooke all told Mr. Karzai that it was up to him and Mr. Khalilzad to decide whether to proceed.
A plan that puts Mr. Khalilzad near the top of a Karzai government would provide the Obama administration with a strong conduit to push American interests in Afghanistan, particularly in cracking down on corruption and the drug trade, which American officials say has helped to fuel the resurgence of the Taliban.
While Mr. Khalilzad served in the Bush administration — including as ambassador to Iraq and the United Nations — he has maintained ties with the Obama administration, as well, and has twice been to the State Department to meet with Mr. Holbrooke.
Mr. Khalilzad could not be reached for comment on Monday.
Mr. Karzai has already successfully defused the candidacies of other potential rivals for the presidency.
One of them, Gul Agha Shirzai, the popular governor of Nangarhar Province, announced after a four-hour meeting with Mr. Karzai that he was pulling out of the presidential race.
Another, Muhammad Qasim Fahim, a former warlord who later became defense minister, was identified by Mr. Karzai as one of two vice-presidential running mates, in a move widely interpreted as an attempt to bolster Mr. Karzai’s standing among former mujahedeen parties.
Kai Eide, the United Nations special representative to Afghanistan, criticized the choice of Mr. Fahim because of human rights concerns.
It remains unclear whether Mr. Karzai and Mr. Khalilzad can strike a deal on an alliance, the American and Afghan officials said.
Several of Mr. Karzai’s own ministers have opposed such a pact, they said, and it is not certain whether Mr. Karzai remains willing to bring Mr. Khalilzad aboard now that the filing deadline for presidential candidates has passed.
Mr. Karzai and Mr. Khalilzad have had a long and sometimes bumpy relationship. They worked closely when Mr. Khalilzad was ambassador to Afghanistan, from 2003 to 2005, and Mr. Karzai, the new president of a fledgling democracy, was viewed as a darling of the West.
But as the United States and Britain have become increasingly disenchanted with Mr. Karzai amid widespread corruption allegations, the two men have also put some distance between themselves, which expanded further as Mr. Khalilzad began to make plans to run against Mr. Karzai for president.
While he was working for the Bush administration, Mr. Khalilzad often brushed up against other officials, including Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
He got in trouble for appearing on a panel with Iran’s foreign minister without getting permission from the White House first. And he annoyed State Department officials when he arranged to meet in Dubai with Asif Ali Zardari to talk about Mr. Zardari’s bid for the presidency of Pakistan, just when the United States was trying to convince Pakistanis that America was not interfering in their internal politics.
U.S. to Issue Tougher Fuel Standards for Automobiles
President Obama will announce as early as Tuesday that he will combine that state’s emissions rules with the existing corporate average fuel economy standard overseen by the Transportation Department, the officials said. As a result, cars and light trucks sold in the United States will be roughly 30 percent cleaner and more fuel-efficient by 2016.
The White House would not divulge details, but environmental advocates and industry officials briefed on the program said that the president would grant California’s longstanding request to implement its tailpipe standards. Thirteen other states and the District of Columbia have said they intend to apply the same rules. That request had been denied by the Bush administration but has been under review by top Obama administration officials since January.
Yet Mr. Obama is planning to go further, effectively issuing a single rule for both fuel economy and emissions that matches California’s strictest-in-the-nation standard.
Under the new standard, the new combined fuel efficiency standard for cars and light trucks will be about 35 miles per gallon by 2016, roughly in line with the California rule.
“This is a very big deal,” said Daniel Becker of the Safe Climate Campaign, a group that has pushed for tougher mileage and emissions standards with the goal of curbing the heat-trapping gases that have been linked to global warming. “This is the single biggest step the American government has ever taken to cut greenhouse-gas emissions.”
Industry officials spoke on condition of anonymity about the program because they said they did not want to comment publicly in advance of the White House announcement.
The current standards are 27.5 miles a gallon for cars and about 24 miles a gallon for trucks. The new mileage and emissions rules will gradually tighten, beginning with 2011 models, until they reach the 2016 standards.
The auto industry is not expected to challenge the rule, which provides two things they have long asked for: certainty on a timetable and a single national standard.
The administration has faced a June 30 deadline set by Congress to decide whether to grant California’s application to impose new emissions rules. President Obama became personally involved in the issue because he is also trying to find a way to rescue the American automobile companies from their financial crisis.
One top industry official said the administration wanted to get the new mileage rules in place before General Motors makes a decision on a bankruptcy filing, which could happen by the end of the month.
The new rules also provide some certainty for Chrysler, which is already under bankruptcy protection, so that it can plan its future models.
Mr. Obama directed the Environmental Protection Agency in January to reconsider the Bush administration’s past rejection of the California application. The president also instructed the Transportation Department to draw up rules to supplement a 2007 law requiring a 40 percent improvement in gas mileage for autos and light trucks by 2020.
The Bush administration failed to write any regulations to enforce the 2007 law.
Daniel J. Weiss, an environmental policy analyst at the liberal Center for American Progress, said that under the White House plan, California would retain the ability to set its own emissions standards in the future when the current program expires.
He also said that the new administration program was very close in language and intent to a provision in the climate change and energy bill now before the House Energy and Commerce Committee. That bill calls for a "harmonization" of the California and federal regulatory programs to provide a nationwide standard.
He said the standards were being written so that the car companies would already be on track to meet the standards set in the first few years of the program. The cars and trucks that will be sold in that period are already in the design phase. But starting in 2013 and 2014, the new rules will begin to bite, Mr. Weiss said.
"The rubber really meets the road in 2014," he said.
Mr. Obama has been thinking about the future of the American automobile industry for years. In 2006, during his second year as a United States senator, he co-sponsored a bill to raise fuel economy standards and another to encourage the use of alternative fuels.
During the presidential campaign, he gave a speech in Detroit chastising the American automobile industry for doing too little to reduce the nation’s dependence on foreign oil and to improve the vehicles’ fuel efficiency.
"The auto industry’s refusal to act for so long has left it mired in a predicament for which there is no easy way out," Mr. Obama said.
That inaction was one factor that brought General Motors and Chrysler to their current dire state, requiring billions in federal bailouts and Chrysler’s forced marriage to Fiat to survive.
The White House would not divulge details, but environmental advocates and industry officials briefed on the program said that the president would grant California’s longstanding request to implement its tailpipe standards. Thirteen other states and the District of Columbia have said they intend to apply the same rules. That request had been denied by the Bush administration but has been under review by top Obama administration officials since January.
Yet Mr. Obama is planning to go further, effectively issuing a single rule for both fuel economy and emissions that matches California’s strictest-in-the-nation standard.
Under the new standard, the new combined fuel efficiency standard for cars and light trucks will be about 35 miles per gallon by 2016, roughly in line with the California rule.
“This is a very big deal,” said Daniel Becker of the Safe Climate Campaign, a group that has pushed for tougher mileage and emissions standards with the goal of curbing the heat-trapping gases that have been linked to global warming. “This is the single biggest step the American government has ever taken to cut greenhouse-gas emissions.”
Industry officials spoke on condition of anonymity about the program because they said they did not want to comment publicly in advance of the White House announcement.
The current standards are 27.5 miles a gallon for cars and about 24 miles a gallon for trucks. The new mileage and emissions rules will gradually tighten, beginning with 2011 models, until they reach the 2016 standards.
The auto industry is not expected to challenge the rule, which provides two things they have long asked for: certainty on a timetable and a single national standard.
The administration has faced a June 30 deadline set by Congress to decide whether to grant California’s application to impose new emissions rules. President Obama became personally involved in the issue because he is also trying to find a way to rescue the American automobile companies from their financial crisis.
One top industry official said the administration wanted to get the new mileage rules in place before General Motors makes a decision on a bankruptcy filing, which could happen by the end of the month.
The new rules also provide some certainty for Chrysler, which is already under bankruptcy protection, so that it can plan its future models.
Mr. Obama directed the Environmental Protection Agency in January to reconsider the Bush administration’s past rejection of the California application. The president also instructed the Transportation Department to draw up rules to supplement a 2007 law requiring a 40 percent improvement in gas mileage for autos and light trucks by 2020.
The Bush administration failed to write any regulations to enforce the 2007 law.
Daniel J. Weiss, an environmental policy analyst at the liberal Center for American Progress, said that under the White House plan, California would retain the ability to set its own emissions standards in the future when the current program expires.
He also said that the new administration program was very close in language and intent to a provision in the climate change and energy bill now before the House Energy and Commerce Committee. That bill calls for a "harmonization" of the California and federal regulatory programs to provide a nationwide standard.
He said the standards were being written so that the car companies would already be on track to meet the standards set in the first few years of the program. The cars and trucks that will be sold in that period are already in the design phase. But starting in 2013 and 2014, the new rules will begin to bite, Mr. Weiss said.
"The rubber really meets the road in 2014," he said.
Mr. Obama has been thinking about the future of the American automobile industry for years. In 2006, during his second year as a United States senator, he co-sponsored a bill to raise fuel economy standards and another to encourage the use of alternative fuels.
During the presidential campaign, he gave a speech in Detroit chastising the American automobile industry for doing too little to reduce the nation’s dependence on foreign oil and to improve the vehicles’ fuel efficiency.
"The auto industry’s refusal to act for so long has left it mired in a predicament for which there is no easy way out," Mr. Obama said.
That inaction was one factor that brought General Motors and Chrysler to their current dire state, requiring billions in federal bailouts and Chrysler’s forced marriage to Fiat to survive.
Judges uphold British soldiers' human rights – even in battle
British soldiers must be protected by European human rights laws wherever they are deployed, even in battle, the appeal court ruled yesterday in a judgment described by the government as having "very serious implications" for military operations.
Three senior judges unanimously rejected claims by the Ministry of Defence that a British soldier could be protected by the Human Rights Act only when he is on a military base. "In our judgment it makes no sense to hold that he is not so protected when in an ambulance or in a truck or in the street or in the desert," they said.
"Soldiers serve abroad as a result of, and pursuant to, the exercise of UK jurisdiction over them. Thus the legality of their presence and of their actions depends on their being subject to UK jurisdiction and complying with UK law."
The ruling means that sending soldiers on patrol or into battle with clearly defective or inadequate equipment could breach their human rights.
The court case followed a legal challenge to the MoD's refusal to hand over information at the inquest of Private Jason Smith, a TA soldier who died of heatstroke in Basra on 13 August 2003. He told medical staff four days previously that he was feeling seriously unwell in the 50C heat.
Smith's mother, Catherine, said: "I am absolutely delighted and relieved by the result. This victory is not for me, nothing can bring Jason back, but it is for all those brave men and women who are still risking their lives in our name. It is also for families who still have to go through the trauma of an inquest."
Jocelyn Cockburn, her solicitor, said: "The implications of this judgment are simple – our armed forces now have the same protections as all the rest of us. The MoD suggestion that they should lose these protections when on the battlefield is outrageous. Soldiers have the right to know, when risking their lives for us, that we have provided them with all reasonable protection."
The MoD could now face a series of compensation claims. Inquests have heard that soldiers have died as a result of faulty equipment or lack of body armour.
Sir Anthony Clarke, Master of the Rolls, said the MoD had been given leave to appeal to the law lords because of the importance of the case.
However, John Wadham, the legal director of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, said: "This case is not about compensation but about transparency." He added: "Of course we recognise that the armed forces are operating in dangerous situations. We can't protect their life at all costs in a combat situation, but we can do our best to ensure they remain as safe as possible".
Bob Ainsworth, the armed forces minister, said the MoD was "surprised and disappointed" by the judgment. "It potentially has serious implications for the ability of our forces – and those of our allies – to conduct military operations overseas."
An MoD spokesman said: "In the heat of battle during dynamic and fast-moving military operations on foreign territory, the UK could not secure the rights and freedoms which the Human Rights Act seeks to guarantee."
However, the judges referred to "reasonable steps" that could be taken to protect soldiers. They also said a new inquest into Smith's death should consider whether there had been "systemic failures" in the army.
Shami Chakrabarti, director of civil liberties campaign group Liberty, said: "This is a wonderful landmark decision that will defend Britain's bravest men and women for years to come. Some would like to caricature human rights as shielding only criminals but the court of appeal has made clear that they belong to everyone."
This case, and other recent ones where judges have attacked MoD secrecy, will force it to be more open, especially in future inquests, analysts said.
Past criticism has already led the MoD to improve medical care and welfare provision for soldiers, as well as getting them better equipment.
Nick Harvey, Liberal Democrat defence spokesman, said later: "The government has been trading on the can-do attitude of British soldiers for far too long. Ministers are happy to waste billions of pounds on huge procurement projects, but they pinch pennies when it comes to providing the vital equipment that our troops on the front line depend upon."
Liam Fox, the shadow defence secretary, said: "To apply the Human Rights Act in a warzone flies in the face of common sense. Our troops and commanders have enough to worry about on the battlefield without worrying about where the next legal attack will come from."
Three senior judges unanimously rejected claims by the Ministry of Defence that a British soldier could be protected by the Human Rights Act only when he is on a military base. "In our judgment it makes no sense to hold that he is not so protected when in an ambulance or in a truck or in the street or in the desert," they said.
"Soldiers serve abroad as a result of, and pursuant to, the exercise of UK jurisdiction over them. Thus the legality of their presence and of their actions depends on their being subject to UK jurisdiction and complying with UK law."
The ruling means that sending soldiers on patrol or into battle with clearly defective or inadequate equipment could breach their human rights.
The court case followed a legal challenge to the MoD's refusal to hand over information at the inquest of Private Jason Smith, a TA soldier who died of heatstroke in Basra on 13 August 2003. He told medical staff four days previously that he was feeling seriously unwell in the 50C heat.
Smith's mother, Catherine, said: "I am absolutely delighted and relieved by the result. This victory is not for me, nothing can bring Jason back, but it is for all those brave men and women who are still risking their lives in our name. It is also for families who still have to go through the trauma of an inquest."
Jocelyn Cockburn, her solicitor, said: "The implications of this judgment are simple – our armed forces now have the same protections as all the rest of us. The MoD suggestion that they should lose these protections when on the battlefield is outrageous. Soldiers have the right to know, when risking their lives for us, that we have provided them with all reasonable protection."
The MoD could now face a series of compensation claims. Inquests have heard that soldiers have died as a result of faulty equipment or lack of body armour.
Sir Anthony Clarke, Master of the Rolls, said the MoD had been given leave to appeal to the law lords because of the importance of the case.
However, John Wadham, the legal director of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, said: "This case is not about compensation but about transparency." He added: "Of course we recognise that the armed forces are operating in dangerous situations. We can't protect their life at all costs in a combat situation, but we can do our best to ensure they remain as safe as possible".
Bob Ainsworth, the armed forces minister, said the MoD was "surprised and disappointed" by the judgment. "It potentially has serious implications for the ability of our forces – and those of our allies – to conduct military operations overseas."
An MoD spokesman said: "In the heat of battle during dynamic and fast-moving military operations on foreign territory, the UK could not secure the rights and freedoms which the Human Rights Act seeks to guarantee."
However, the judges referred to "reasonable steps" that could be taken to protect soldiers. They also said a new inquest into Smith's death should consider whether there had been "systemic failures" in the army.
Shami Chakrabarti, director of civil liberties campaign group Liberty, said: "This is a wonderful landmark decision that will defend Britain's bravest men and women for years to come. Some would like to caricature human rights as shielding only criminals but the court of appeal has made clear that they belong to everyone."
This case, and other recent ones where judges have attacked MoD secrecy, will force it to be more open, especially in future inquests, analysts said.
Past criticism has already led the MoD to improve medical care and welfare provision for soldiers, as well as getting them better equipment.
Nick Harvey, Liberal Democrat defence spokesman, said later: "The government has been trading on the can-do attitude of British soldiers for far too long. Ministers are happy to waste billions of pounds on huge procurement projects, but they pinch pennies when it comes to providing the vital equipment that our troops on the front line depend upon."
Liam Fox, the shadow defence secretary, said: "To apply the Human Rights Act in a warzone flies in the face of common sense. Our troops and commanders have enough to worry about on the battlefield without worrying about where the next legal attack will come from."
Three social workers suspended after teenager's sex attacks on young children
Three members of staff have been suspended after a series of errors gave a disturbed teenager the opportunity to sexually abuse two young children in a family he had been placed with, according to an inquiry report published today.
Social workers and managers concentrated on the 19-year-old's own problems rather than on the risks he posed to the family he was sent to live with, the inquiry found. The team that dealt with the teenager had been naive in not passing on details of the young man's background to the family.
The 19-year-old was jailed indefinitely in February after he admitted the rape and sexual assault of the children. He had been sent to live with the family by Vale of Glamorgan's adult placement service despite a history of sexual behaviour involving children.
The inquiry, carried out by the local authority and overseen by children's charity the NSPCC, found serious mistakes were made.
The report said: "Sadly, in this case there is a strong possibility that the significant harm inflicted on the children … would have been avoided if some staff in social services had worked to the high standards of practice required of them."
When social services had been responsible for the 19-year-old as a child, the risks he posed to others were recognised, shared and managed appropriately. Problems arose when he became an adult and staff were helping him find accommodation. A risk assessment was not carried out despite the written instruction of a senior manager.
"Seen for the most part as a victim in many aspects of his life, he was considered to be the one in need of protection," the report said. "Because of this focus, much of the relevant information was not made available to the parents of the children and to some of the staff involved in making decisions about providing accommodation."
The director of social services at Vale of Glamorgan council, Philip Evans, said he had considered his position but felt the easy option was to resign. The responsible action was to make sure recommendations in the report were implemented.
He said: "We have suspended three members of staff – social workers and managers – and further disciplinary action will follow quickly now we have the inquiry report. Potentially, the consequences to the staff are serious."
After sentencing earlier this year, Cardiff crown court heard that allegations about the teenager's sexual behaviour were first made in 2004, when it was claimed he acted in a sexually inappropriate way to a boy.
In 2005 he was said to have sexually touched a boy while both lived at a hostel in England. Last year he allegedly sexually assaulted a 16-year-old while they were in the same hostel. Despite this he was sent to live with the couple and their children.
The Conservative leader of the council, Gordon Kemp, said: "This is an extremely bleak day for the council. It's an extremely tragic situation, particularly so for the children involved and for their parents. We all want to offer them our sincere apologies for what's happened."
The council's chief executive, John Maitland Evans, was concerned that social services staff did not contact police when the first allegations were made against the 19-year-old. He said: "The parents were left with responsibility for contacting the police. Failure to act by these staff is almost beyond understanding. It's especially sad for us that we let down a family who opened their home to vulnerable people."
Evans said the family were still involved with adult placement provision.
Gwenda Thomas, the deputy minister for social services at the Welsh assembly, expressed her "deep concern" at the case.
Social workers and managers concentrated on the 19-year-old's own problems rather than on the risks he posed to the family he was sent to live with, the inquiry found. The team that dealt with the teenager had been naive in not passing on details of the young man's background to the family.
The 19-year-old was jailed indefinitely in February after he admitted the rape and sexual assault of the children. He had been sent to live with the family by Vale of Glamorgan's adult placement service despite a history of sexual behaviour involving children.
The inquiry, carried out by the local authority and overseen by children's charity the NSPCC, found serious mistakes were made.
The report said: "Sadly, in this case there is a strong possibility that the significant harm inflicted on the children … would have been avoided if some staff in social services had worked to the high standards of practice required of them."
When social services had been responsible for the 19-year-old as a child, the risks he posed to others were recognised, shared and managed appropriately. Problems arose when he became an adult and staff were helping him find accommodation. A risk assessment was not carried out despite the written instruction of a senior manager.
"Seen for the most part as a victim in many aspects of his life, he was considered to be the one in need of protection," the report said. "Because of this focus, much of the relevant information was not made available to the parents of the children and to some of the staff involved in making decisions about providing accommodation."
The director of social services at Vale of Glamorgan council, Philip Evans, said he had considered his position but felt the easy option was to resign. The responsible action was to make sure recommendations in the report were implemented.
He said: "We have suspended three members of staff – social workers and managers – and further disciplinary action will follow quickly now we have the inquiry report. Potentially, the consequences to the staff are serious."
After sentencing earlier this year, Cardiff crown court heard that allegations about the teenager's sexual behaviour were first made in 2004, when it was claimed he acted in a sexually inappropriate way to a boy.
In 2005 he was said to have sexually touched a boy while both lived at a hostel in England. Last year he allegedly sexually assaulted a 16-year-old while they were in the same hostel. Despite this he was sent to live with the couple and their children.
The Conservative leader of the council, Gordon Kemp, said: "This is an extremely bleak day for the council. It's an extremely tragic situation, particularly so for the children involved and for their parents. We all want to offer them our sincere apologies for what's happened."
The council's chief executive, John Maitland Evans, was concerned that social services staff did not contact police when the first allegations were made against the 19-year-old. He said: "The parents were left with responsibility for contacting the police. Failure to act by these staff is almost beyond understanding. It's especially sad for us that we let down a family who opened their home to vulnerable people."
Evans said the family were still involved with adult placement provision.
Gwenda Thomas, the deputy minister for social services at the Welsh assembly, expressed her "deep concern" at the case.
Swat valley could be worst refugee crisis since Rwanda, UN warns
The human exodus from the war-torn Swat valley in northern Pakistan is turning into the world's most dramatic displacement crisis since the Rwandan genocide of 1994, the UN refugee agency warned.
Almost 1.5 million people have registered for assistance since fighting erupted three weeks ago, the UNHCR said, bringing the total number of war displaced in North West Frontier province to more than 2 million, not including 300,000 the provincial government believes have not registered. "It's been a long time since there has been a displacement this big," the UNHCR's spokesman Ron Redmond said in Geneva, trying to recall the last time so many people had been uprooted so quickly. "It could go back to Rwanda."
The army reported fierce clashes across Swat, a tourist haven turned Taliban stronghold. After a week of intense aerial bombardment with fighter jets and helicopter gunships the army has launched a ground offensive to drive out the militants to rout the militants from the valley. Commandos pushed through the remote Piochar valley, seizing a training centre and killing a dozen Taliban, a military spokesman, Major General Athar Abbas, said. Gun battles erupted in several villages surrounding Mingora, Swat's main town. Abbas said the military had killed 27 militants, including three commanders, and lost three members of the security forces. The figures could not be verified, as Swat has been largely cut off since the operation started.
The Taliban leader in Swat, Maulana Fazlullah, remains at large. His spokesman vowed the rebels would fight until their "last breath".
The operation continues to enjoy broad public support. Opposition parties endorsed the action at a conference called by the government, dispelling the notion that the army was fighting "America's war".
But that fragile unity could be threatened by heavy civilian casualties or a further deterioration in the conditions of the 2 million displaced. Returning from a three-day trip to Pakistan, the UNHCR head António Guterres termed the displacement crisis as "one of the most dramatic of recent times". Relief workers were "struggling to keep up with the size and speed of the displacement," a statement said.
The main difference with African refugee crises such as Rwanda, however, is that a minority of people are being housed in tented camps. According to the UN just 130,000 people are being accommodated in the sprawling, hot camps in Mardan and Swabi districts, while most are squeezed into the homes of friends or relatives, with as many as 85 people in one house.
Nevertheless aid workers and political analysts warn that if international aid to ease the crisis is not urgently delivered, the strain on the displaced and those helping them could lead to political destablisation. Acknowledging the scale of the crisis, the prime minister of Pakistan, Yousaf Raza Gilani, said: "The displaced men, women and children should not feel alone. We won't leave any stone unturned in providing them help and protection."
The UN is expected to launch an international appeal for aid running into hundreds of millions of dollars in the coming days.
Almost 1.5 million people have registered for assistance since fighting erupted three weeks ago, the UNHCR said, bringing the total number of war displaced in North West Frontier province to more than 2 million, not including 300,000 the provincial government believes have not registered. "It's been a long time since there has been a displacement this big," the UNHCR's spokesman Ron Redmond said in Geneva, trying to recall the last time so many people had been uprooted so quickly. "It could go back to Rwanda."
The army reported fierce clashes across Swat, a tourist haven turned Taliban stronghold. After a week of intense aerial bombardment with fighter jets and helicopter gunships the army has launched a ground offensive to drive out the militants to rout the militants from the valley. Commandos pushed through the remote Piochar valley, seizing a training centre and killing a dozen Taliban, a military spokesman, Major General Athar Abbas, said. Gun battles erupted in several villages surrounding Mingora, Swat's main town. Abbas said the military had killed 27 militants, including three commanders, and lost three members of the security forces. The figures could not be verified, as Swat has been largely cut off since the operation started.
The Taliban leader in Swat, Maulana Fazlullah, remains at large. His spokesman vowed the rebels would fight until their "last breath".
The operation continues to enjoy broad public support. Opposition parties endorsed the action at a conference called by the government, dispelling the notion that the army was fighting "America's war".
But that fragile unity could be threatened by heavy civilian casualties or a further deterioration in the conditions of the 2 million displaced. Returning from a three-day trip to Pakistan, the UNHCR head António Guterres termed the displacement crisis as "one of the most dramatic of recent times". Relief workers were "struggling to keep up with the size and speed of the displacement," a statement said.
The main difference with African refugee crises such as Rwanda, however, is that a minority of people are being housed in tented camps. According to the UN just 130,000 people are being accommodated in the sprawling, hot camps in Mardan and Swabi districts, while most are squeezed into the homes of friends or relatives, with as many as 85 people in one house.
Nevertheless aid workers and political analysts warn that if international aid to ease the crisis is not urgently delivered, the strain on the displaced and those helping them could lead to political destablisation. Acknowledging the scale of the crisis, the prime minister of Pakistan, Yousaf Raza Gilani, said: "The displaced men, women and children should not feel alone. We won't leave any stone unturned in providing them help and protection."
The UN is expected to launch an international appeal for aid running into hundreds of millions of dollars in the coming days.
China and US held secret talks on climate change deal
A high-powered group of senior Republicans and Democrats led two missions to China in the final months of the Bush administration for secret backchannel negotiations aimed at securing a deal on joint US-Chinese action on climate change, the Guardian has learned.
The initiative, involving John Holdren, now the White House science adviser, and others who went on to positions in Barack Obama's administration, produced a draft agreement in March, barely two months after the Democrat assumed the presidency.
The memorandum of understanding was not signed, but those involved in opening up the channel of communications believe it could provide the foundation for a US-Chinese accord to battle climate change, which could be reached as early as this autumn.
"My sense is that we are now working towards something in the fall," said Bill Chandler, director of the energy and climate programme at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and the driving force behind the talks. "It will be serious. It will be substantive, and it will happen."
The secret missions suggest that advisers to Obama came to power firmly focused on getting a US-China understanding in the run-up to the crucial UN meeting in Copenhagen this December, which is aimed at sealing a global deal to slash greenhouse gas emissions. In her first policy address the secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, said she wanted to recast the broad US-China relationship around the central issue of climate change. She also stopped in Beijing on her first foreign tour.
The dialogue also challenges the conventional wisdom that George Bush's decision to pull America out of the Kyoto climate change treaty had led to paralysis in the administration on global warming, and that China was unwilling to contemplate emissions cuts at a time of rapid economic growth.
"There are these two countries that the world blames for doing nothing, and they have a better story to tell," said Terry Tamminen, who took part in the talks and is an environmental adviser to the governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger. The nations are the top two polluters on Earth.
The first communications, in the autumn of 2007, were initiated by the Chinese. Xie Zhenhua, the vice-chairman of the National Development and Reform Commission, the country's central economic planning body, made the first move by expressing interest in a co-operative effort on carbon capture and storage and other technologies with the US.
The first face-to-face meeting, held over two days at a luxury hotel at the Great Wall of China in July 2008, got off to a tentative start with Xie falling back on China's stated policy positions. "It was sort of like pushing a tape recorder," said Chandler, "[but after a short while] he just cut it off and said we need to get beyond this."
The two sides began discussing ways to break through the impasse, including the possibility that China would agree to voluntary – but verifiable – reductions of greenhouse gas emissions. China has rejected the possibility of cuts as it sees that as a risk to its continued economic growth, deemed essential to lift millions out of poverty and advance national status.
Taiya Smith, an adviser on China to Bush's treasury secretary, Hank Paulson, who was at the first of the two sessions, said: "The thing that came out of it that was priceless was the recognition on both sides that what China was doing to [reduce] the effects of climate change were not very well known," she said. "After these discussions was a real public campaign by the Chinese government to try to make people aware of what they were doing. We started to see the Chinese take a different tone which was that 'we are active and engaged in trying to solve the problem'."
During the second trip to China by the Americans, Xie suggested a memorandum of understanding between the two countries on joint action on climate change.
Chandler said he and Holdren drew up a three-point memo which envisaged:
•Using existing technologies to produce a 20% cut in carbon emissions by 2010.
• Co-operating on new technology including carbon capture and storage and fuel efficiency for cars.
• The US and China signing up to a global climate change deal in Copenhagen.
"We sent it to Xie and he said he agreed," said Chandler.
The ties were further cemented when Gao Guangsheng, the leading climate official, attended Schwarzenegger's global meeting on climate in November last year. Obama, who had been elected president two weeks earlier, addressed the gathering by video.
By the time Xie visited the US in March, the state department's new climate change envoy, Todd Stern, and his deputy, Jonathan Pershing, were also involved in the dialogue. But the trip by Xie did not produce the hoped-for agreement. Both Stern and Holdren declined to comment when asked by the Guardian.
Those involved agree it was premature to expect the Obama administration to enter into a formal agreement so soon in its tenure. Additional members of the US team included Terry Tamminen; Jim Green, adviser to Joe Biden, now the vice-president who then headed the Senate foreign relations committee; Mark Helmke, adviser to Richard Lugar, the ranking Republican on the committee; and Frank Loy, a former state department negotiator on climate. Both Green and Loy have been nominated to jobs in the Obama administration.
Chandler and Smith believe the effort will pay off in a more comprehensive deal between the two governments. "Xie came to visit the US when the administration was still trying to figure out its standing on climate issues and it was without very much staff," said Smith. "I don't see this as a dead issue at all. I think it's something you would consider still in process."
The initiative, involving John Holdren, now the White House science adviser, and others who went on to positions in Barack Obama's administration, produced a draft agreement in March, barely two months after the Democrat assumed the presidency.
The memorandum of understanding was not signed, but those involved in opening up the channel of communications believe it could provide the foundation for a US-Chinese accord to battle climate change, which could be reached as early as this autumn.
"My sense is that we are now working towards something in the fall," said Bill Chandler, director of the energy and climate programme at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and the driving force behind the talks. "It will be serious. It will be substantive, and it will happen."
The secret missions suggest that advisers to Obama came to power firmly focused on getting a US-China understanding in the run-up to the crucial UN meeting in Copenhagen this December, which is aimed at sealing a global deal to slash greenhouse gas emissions. In her first policy address the secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, said she wanted to recast the broad US-China relationship around the central issue of climate change. She also stopped in Beijing on her first foreign tour.
The dialogue also challenges the conventional wisdom that George Bush's decision to pull America out of the Kyoto climate change treaty had led to paralysis in the administration on global warming, and that China was unwilling to contemplate emissions cuts at a time of rapid economic growth.
"There are these two countries that the world blames for doing nothing, and they have a better story to tell," said Terry Tamminen, who took part in the talks and is an environmental adviser to the governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger. The nations are the top two polluters on Earth.
The first communications, in the autumn of 2007, were initiated by the Chinese. Xie Zhenhua, the vice-chairman of the National Development and Reform Commission, the country's central economic planning body, made the first move by expressing interest in a co-operative effort on carbon capture and storage and other technologies with the US.
The first face-to-face meeting, held over two days at a luxury hotel at the Great Wall of China in July 2008, got off to a tentative start with Xie falling back on China's stated policy positions. "It was sort of like pushing a tape recorder," said Chandler, "[but after a short while] he just cut it off and said we need to get beyond this."
The two sides began discussing ways to break through the impasse, including the possibility that China would agree to voluntary – but verifiable – reductions of greenhouse gas emissions. China has rejected the possibility of cuts as it sees that as a risk to its continued economic growth, deemed essential to lift millions out of poverty and advance national status.
Taiya Smith, an adviser on China to Bush's treasury secretary, Hank Paulson, who was at the first of the two sessions, said: "The thing that came out of it that was priceless was the recognition on both sides that what China was doing to [reduce] the effects of climate change were not very well known," she said. "After these discussions was a real public campaign by the Chinese government to try to make people aware of what they were doing. We started to see the Chinese take a different tone which was that 'we are active and engaged in trying to solve the problem'."
During the second trip to China by the Americans, Xie suggested a memorandum of understanding between the two countries on joint action on climate change.
Chandler said he and Holdren drew up a three-point memo which envisaged:
•Using existing technologies to produce a 20% cut in carbon emissions by 2010.
• Co-operating on new technology including carbon capture and storage and fuel efficiency for cars.
• The US and China signing up to a global climate change deal in Copenhagen.
"We sent it to Xie and he said he agreed," said Chandler.
The ties were further cemented when Gao Guangsheng, the leading climate official, attended Schwarzenegger's global meeting on climate in November last year. Obama, who had been elected president two weeks earlier, addressed the gathering by video.
By the time Xie visited the US in March, the state department's new climate change envoy, Todd Stern, and his deputy, Jonathan Pershing, were also involved in the dialogue. But the trip by Xie did not produce the hoped-for agreement. Both Stern and Holdren declined to comment when asked by the Guardian.
Those involved agree it was premature to expect the Obama administration to enter into a formal agreement so soon in its tenure. Additional members of the US team included Terry Tamminen; Jim Green, adviser to Joe Biden, now the vice-president who then headed the Senate foreign relations committee; Mark Helmke, adviser to Richard Lugar, the ranking Republican on the committee; and Frank Loy, a former state department negotiator on climate. Both Green and Loy have been nominated to jobs in the Obama administration.
Chandler and Smith believe the effort will pay off in a more comprehensive deal between the two governments. "Xie came to visit the US when the administration was still trying to figure out its standing on climate issues and it was without very much staff," said Smith. "I don't see this as a dead issue at all. I think it's something you would consider still in process."
Peace hopes grip Sri Lankans
The national flags are out. They are decking the streets, sold in clusters on street corners, fluttering from the auto rickshaws, waved by men in a pick-up truck.
On the streets of Colombo there is jubilation and smiling faces as the firecrackers are lit.
"I'm very very happy. After 30 years we've won… victory, I suppose!" says a young woman in Pettah, an old market area near the city centre, almost in surprise.
She says she is proud of the president and intends to go home and put out flags.
Not only Sinhalese but also Tamil, Muslim and other people tell the BBC they are relieved.
For decades they had feared boarding buses or visiting temples, some said, for fear of bombs. Now they hope there will be peace.
'Pride'
There is patriotic satisfaction, too, in website postings by Sri Lankans.
Sri Lanka Rockz," says one.
Some take pride in the military. "Every time we all are with you, our great warriors... One nation - One flag - Sri Lanka."
The army says its operations are ended, that rebel leader Velupillai Prabhakaran is dead and troops now hold all of the island's territory for the first time since 1983.
Such news will have been greeted almost with disbelief by Sri Lankans, many of whom were born into war or barely remember the time before it.
"We're part of history!" says another posting. "Today is the first day of my life I'm living in a Sri Lanka where there is no war."
A taxi driver expresses the view that, with the top Tamil Tiger leaders out of the picture, bomb blasts really will become a thing of the past.
But will they?
End of the road
Some commentators have predicted that, after their military defeat, the Tigers will concentrate more on their hallmark bombing tactics - saying this will be made possible by the cells they maintain.
But one expert tells the BBC he does not accept that argument.
Maybe there will be stray cases, he says, but with so many of the top LTTE [Tamil Tigers] leaders reportedly killed by the army, he does not see what Tamils would want to kill themselves for.
After all, according to Prabhakaran's biographer MR Narayan Swamy, for the Tigers he was "their brain… their heart… their god… their soul".
Indeed, asked whether they would continue the guerrilla war, the LTTE's foreign-based international relations head, S Padmanathan, told Britain's Channel 4 television on Sunday he believed in a peaceful solution for the Tamil people.
The war started by the LTTE has left humanitarian suffering on a huge scale - including in its final stages.
Dealing with the suffering of the refugees, the wounded and the bereaved will loom high on Sri Lanka's agenda in the immediate future.
Almost a month ago, the United Nations said it feared 6,500 civilians had been killed and twice the number wounded in the war zone since January - civilians who, it alleged, were forcibly held there by the LTTE (although the rebels always denied that) and were caught in heavy crossfire.
It described more recent violence in the small rebel-controlled zone in the north-east of the country as a "bloodbath".
Doctors working in the area described hundreds of deaths and injuries at their makeshift clinics, having to abandon the facilities in the last days.
The government said it doubted their information, as they might have been speaking under LTTE pressure - but the UN trusted them as an impartial source.
Even on Monday the UN refugee agency's head in Sri Lanka, Amin Awad, said he was worried civilians might have been killed within the past 48 hours.
Ongoing grievances
Hundreds of thousands of traumatised, emaciated people have poured out of the combat zone in the past few weeks and now stay in difficult conditions in government-run camps.
The UN and humanitarian agencies will be hoping for better access to them now that the war is over.
The UN has also said it is concerned about the welfare of the doctors who are believed to have escaped the fighting but have not been heard from since.
The government says political reforms will also be on its agenda, reforms that will perhaps aim to tackle some of the grievances of Tamil citizens who, as an ethnic minority, feel discriminated against or marginalised by the state.
There have also been calls, both from within and outside the country, for a process of reconciliation and healing, and for the government to be magnanimous in victory.
One Sri Lankan exile, also posting on the web, says he is concerned that a "hunt for Tigers and traitors will continue" - reflecting on the hard line the government has often taken towards dissenting voices and those it accuses of giving comfort to the rebels.
"We shouldn't be triumphalist," a Sinhala woman, who largely supported the government's campaign against the LTTE, told the BBC.
On the streets of Colombo there is jubilation and smiling faces as the firecrackers are lit.
"I'm very very happy. After 30 years we've won… victory, I suppose!" says a young woman in Pettah, an old market area near the city centre, almost in surprise.
She says she is proud of the president and intends to go home and put out flags.
Not only Sinhalese but also Tamil, Muslim and other people tell the BBC they are relieved.
For decades they had feared boarding buses or visiting temples, some said, for fear of bombs. Now they hope there will be peace.
'Pride'
There is patriotic satisfaction, too, in website postings by Sri Lankans.
Sri Lanka Rockz," says one.
Some take pride in the military. "Every time we all are with you, our great warriors... One nation - One flag - Sri Lanka."
The army says its operations are ended, that rebel leader Velupillai Prabhakaran is dead and troops now hold all of the island's territory for the first time since 1983.
Such news will have been greeted almost with disbelief by Sri Lankans, many of whom were born into war or barely remember the time before it.
"We're part of history!" says another posting. "Today is the first day of my life I'm living in a Sri Lanka where there is no war."
A taxi driver expresses the view that, with the top Tamil Tiger leaders out of the picture, bomb blasts really will become a thing of the past.
But will they?
End of the road
Some commentators have predicted that, after their military defeat, the Tigers will concentrate more on their hallmark bombing tactics - saying this will be made possible by the cells they maintain.
But one expert tells the BBC he does not accept that argument.
Maybe there will be stray cases, he says, but with so many of the top LTTE [Tamil Tigers] leaders reportedly killed by the army, he does not see what Tamils would want to kill themselves for.
After all, according to Prabhakaran's biographer MR Narayan Swamy, for the Tigers he was "their brain… their heart… their god… their soul".
Indeed, asked whether they would continue the guerrilla war, the LTTE's foreign-based international relations head, S Padmanathan, told Britain's Channel 4 television on Sunday he believed in a peaceful solution for the Tamil people.
The war started by the LTTE has left humanitarian suffering on a huge scale - including in its final stages.
Dealing with the suffering of the refugees, the wounded and the bereaved will loom high on Sri Lanka's agenda in the immediate future.
Almost a month ago, the United Nations said it feared 6,500 civilians had been killed and twice the number wounded in the war zone since January - civilians who, it alleged, were forcibly held there by the LTTE (although the rebels always denied that) and were caught in heavy crossfire.
It described more recent violence in the small rebel-controlled zone in the north-east of the country as a "bloodbath".
Doctors working in the area described hundreds of deaths and injuries at their makeshift clinics, having to abandon the facilities in the last days.
The government said it doubted their information, as they might have been speaking under LTTE pressure - but the UN trusted them as an impartial source.
Even on Monday the UN refugee agency's head in Sri Lanka, Amin Awad, said he was worried civilians might have been killed within the past 48 hours.
Ongoing grievances
Hundreds of thousands of traumatised, emaciated people have poured out of the combat zone in the past few weeks and now stay in difficult conditions in government-run camps.
The UN and humanitarian agencies will be hoping for better access to them now that the war is over.
The UN has also said it is concerned about the welfare of the doctors who are believed to have escaped the fighting but have not been heard from since.
The government says political reforms will also be on its agenda, reforms that will perhaps aim to tackle some of the grievances of Tamil citizens who, as an ethnic minority, feel discriminated against or marginalised by the state.
There have also been calls, both from within and outside the country, for a process of reconciliation and healing, and for the government to be magnanimous in victory.
One Sri Lankan exile, also posting on the web, says he is concerned that a "hunt for Tigers and traitors will continue" - reflecting on the hard line the government has often taken towards dissenting voices and those it accuses of giving comfort to the rebels.
"We shouldn't be triumphalist," a Sinhala woman, who largely supported the government's campaign against the LTTE, told the BBC.
Angry MPs turn on Commons Speaker
The Speaker of the House of Commons has been challenged by MPs to stand down in unprecedented scenes in the chamber.
Michael Martin did not mention his future in a statement on the expenses furore - instead he set out proposed action to reform the system.
He said he was "profoundly sorry" for his role and said all MPs must accept blame for the "terrible damage" done.
But a succession of MPs challenged him openly, saying they wanted a debate and a vote of no confidence in him.
It follows a week of damaging media revelations about MPs' expenses and criticism of the way Mr Martin has handled the row.
Claims stopped
In a statement to a packed Commons on Monday, Mr Martin apologised for the expenses scandal and outlined steps he would be taking ahead of the findings of an independent inquiry into the allowances system, expected in the autumn.
This included asking party leaders to meet him and members of the House of Commons Commission within 48 hours to look at what proposals for reform for second homes expenses could be agreed upon and put to MPs for approval.
In the meantime the Glasgow North East MP urged members not to submit expenses claims for approval.
"We all bear a heavy responsibility for the terrible damage to the reputation of this House. We must do everything we possibly can to regain the trust and confidence of the people," he said.
Labour's Gordon Prentice was the first to stand up to ask about the no confidence motion, only to be told it was not a "point of order" - to shouts of "oh yes it is".
Douglas Carswell, the Conservative backbencher who is putting forward the motion, got up to ask when it would be debated and when MPs would be able to choose a new Speaker with "moral authority to clean up Westminster and the legitimacy to lead this House out of the mire".
Norway debate
But he was told it was not a "substantive motion, it's an early day motion", which led to MPs shouting and Mr Martin having to seek clarification from a clerk.
Veteran Labour MP David Winnick asked him "with some reluctance" to give "some indication" as to when he would retire, saying "your early retirement sir, would help the reputation of the House".
Mr Martin replied that was "not a subject for today".
Veteran Conservative MP Sir Patrick Cormack likened the mood in the Commons to the mood in the nation for the Norway debate in 1940 - said to be the moment Conservative MPs realised that Neville Chamberlain had to be replaced as prime minister.
And another Conservative MP, Richard Shepherd, said the public would not believe MPs were serious about reform as long as Mr Martin remained as Speaker.
Senior Labour MP Sir Stuart Bell was one of the few to stick up for Mr Martin, saying there had "never been in the history of our land such an attack on the Speaker".
He added: "This House should calm itself down, should have a period of reflection."
The former Tory, now independent, MP Bob Spink also spoke in favour of the Speaker, saying he did not want to see him "become a scapegoat for the action of these members".
Senior Lib Dem MP David Heath said the statement would have been welcomed a few weeks ago but he now had "very grave doubts" as to whether they would restore trust.
'Political death warrant'
Others sought advice on how a debate on the Speaker's future could be tabled.
Former shadow home secretary David Davis asked: "Is it within the power of a backbencher to put down a substantive motion and if so, how?"
There were shouts when Mr Martin said that was a matter for the government.
Mr Martin also had to tell the Conservative MP Mark Field to watch his words when he suggested that some MPs had made fraudulent expenses claims.
Later Liberal Democrat MP Norman Baker, who was attacked by the Speaker last week for giving interviews about greater transparency on MPs' expenses, said Mr Martin "blew it".
"The effect of the statement is for the Speaker to have signed his own political death warrant... I give him less than a week," he told BBC News.
BBC political editor Nick Robinson said that while Mr Martin's statement may have bought him some breathing space, his fate still hung in the balance.
And, at a later meeting of Labour MPs, Mr Robinson said former Cabinet minister Peter Hain urged the prime minister not to try to prevent a debate on the Speaker's future.
The Speaker's critics blame him for various attempts to block requests in recent years to have expenses details released under Freedom of Information laws.
And he angered many by attacking MPs who had pressed for more transparency or criticised his decision to ask the police to investigate the leaking of expenses details to the Daily Telegraph.
Under parliamentary rules, the Speaker can either ignore the motion or ask for it to be debated in government time.
Not right
For MPs to openly criticise the Speaker breaks a long-standing Commons convention, while the last time a Speaker was forced from office was in 1695 - when Sir John Trevor was found guilty by the House of "a high crime and misdemeanour".
Mr Martin has been urged to stand down by Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg.
Prime Minister Gordon Brown declined to give Mr Martin his backing, saying that "the decision about who is Speaker is a matter for the House of Commons - it could never be a matter for the government".
The BBC understands Mr Brown spoke to the Speaker on Sunday about the situation.
Any move to unseat the Speaker would have to be supported by the Conservatives.
But Conservative leader David Cameron said: "The leader of the main opposition party, a government in waiting, and his party cannot, I think, act unilaterally to remove the Speaker in the House of Commons - I don't think that would be right."
Michael Martin did not mention his future in a statement on the expenses furore - instead he set out proposed action to reform the system.
He said he was "profoundly sorry" for his role and said all MPs must accept blame for the "terrible damage" done.
But a succession of MPs challenged him openly, saying they wanted a debate and a vote of no confidence in him.
It follows a week of damaging media revelations about MPs' expenses and criticism of the way Mr Martin has handled the row.
Claims stopped
In a statement to a packed Commons on Monday, Mr Martin apologised for the expenses scandal and outlined steps he would be taking ahead of the findings of an independent inquiry into the allowances system, expected in the autumn.
This included asking party leaders to meet him and members of the House of Commons Commission within 48 hours to look at what proposals for reform for second homes expenses could be agreed upon and put to MPs for approval.
In the meantime the Glasgow North East MP urged members not to submit expenses claims for approval.
"We all bear a heavy responsibility for the terrible damage to the reputation of this House. We must do everything we possibly can to regain the trust and confidence of the people," he said.
Labour's Gordon Prentice was the first to stand up to ask about the no confidence motion, only to be told it was not a "point of order" - to shouts of "oh yes it is".
Douglas Carswell, the Conservative backbencher who is putting forward the motion, got up to ask when it would be debated and when MPs would be able to choose a new Speaker with "moral authority to clean up Westminster and the legitimacy to lead this House out of the mire".
Norway debate
But he was told it was not a "substantive motion, it's an early day motion", which led to MPs shouting and Mr Martin having to seek clarification from a clerk.
Veteran Labour MP David Winnick asked him "with some reluctance" to give "some indication" as to when he would retire, saying "your early retirement sir, would help the reputation of the House".
Mr Martin replied that was "not a subject for today".
Veteran Conservative MP Sir Patrick Cormack likened the mood in the Commons to the mood in the nation for the Norway debate in 1940 - said to be the moment Conservative MPs realised that Neville Chamberlain had to be replaced as prime minister.
And another Conservative MP, Richard Shepherd, said the public would not believe MPs were serious about reform as long as Mr Martin remained as Speaker.
Senior Labour MP Sir Stuart Bell was one of the few to stick up for Mr Martin, saying there had "never been in the history of our land such an attack on the Speaker".
He added: "This House should calm itself down, should have a period of reflection."
The former Tory, now independent, MP Bob Spink also spoke in favour of the Speaker, saying he did not want to see him "become a scapegoat for the action of these members".
Senior Lib Dem MP David Heath said the statement would have been welcomed a few weeks ago but he now had "very grave doubts" as to whether they would restore trust.
'Political death warrant'
Others sought advice on how a debate on the Speaker's future could be tabled.
Former shadow home secretary David Davis asked: "Is it within the power of a backbencher to put down a substantive motion and if so, how?"
There were shouts when Mr Martin said that was a matter for the government.
Mr Martin also had to tell the Conservative MP Mark Field to watch his words when he suggested that some MPs had made fraudulent expenses claims.
Later Liberal Democrat MP Norman Baker, who was attacked by the Speaker last week for giving interviews about greater transparency on MPs' expenses, said Mr Martin "blew it".
"The effect of the statement is for the Speaker to have signed his own political death warrant... I give him less than a week," he told BBC News.
BBC political editor Nick Robinson said that while Mr Martin's statement may have bought him some breathing space, his fate still hung in the balance.
And, at a later meeting of Labour MPs, Mr Robinson said former Cabinet minister Peter Hain urged the prime minister not to try to prevent a debate on the Speaker's future.
The Speaker's critics blame him for various attempts to block requests in recent years to have expenses details released under Freedom of Information laws.
And he angered many by attacking MPs who had pressed for more transparency or criticised his decision to ask the police to investigate the leaking of expenses details to the Daily Telegraph.
Under parliamentary rules, the Speaker can either ignore the motion or ask for it to be debated in government time.
Not right
For MPs to openly criticise the Speaker breaks a long-standing Commons convention, while the last time a Speaker was forced from office was in 1695 - when Sir John Trevor was found guilty by the House of "a high crime and misdemeanour".
Mr Martin has been urged to stand down by Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg.
Prime Minister Gordon Brown declined to give Mr Martin his backing, saying that "the decision about who is Speaker is a matter for the House of Commons - it could never be a matter for the government".
The BBC understands Mr Brown spoke to the Speaker on Sunday about the situation.
Any move to unseat the Speaker would have to be supported by the Conservatives.
But Conservative leader David Cameron said: "The leader of the main opposition party, a government in waiting, and his party cannot, I think, act unilaterally to remove the Speaker in the House of Commons - I don't think that would be right."
Obama presses Netanyahu over two-state plan
US President Barack Obama has urged visiting Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu to accept a Palestinian state.
After their first talks since both took office, Mr Obama restated his support for a two-state plan and said the US would be "engaged in the process".
He also said Israel had an obligation under the 2003 "roadmap" to stop Jewish settlement in the West Bank.
Mr Netanyahu said he was ready to start peace talks "immediately" but refrained from endorsing a Palestinian state.
After their meeting in Washington, Mr Obama said he had suggested the Israeli prime minister had a "historic opportunity to get a serious movement" on Palestinian statehood.
I firmly believe it is not in Iran's interest to develop nuclear weapons
Mr Netanyahu said Israel was ready to live "side by side" with Palestinians and he could resume talks immediately, but any agreement depended on Palestinian acceptance of Israel's right to exist "as a Jewish state", he added.
Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat reacted with derision to Mr Netanyahu's remarks.
"How can I govern myself by myself as a Palestinian with his occupation going on on my neck on the hour every hour? With his roadblocks segregating our towns and villages and refugee camps?" he said.
A Hamas official, Musher al-Masri, said the Americans still were not treating Israel and the Palestinians even-handedly.
In Israel itself, right-wingers said they were worried the Americans were moving away from their commitment to Israel's security, while opposition Kadima politicians said Mr Netanyahu had missed the chance to forge real trust with President Obama.
Nuclear Iran
The BBC's Kim Ghattas in Washington says Mr Obama was clearly putting the onus on Mr Netanyahu to accept a Palestinian state
The differences between the two men are still there, she says, adding that the meeting has given Mr Obama an opportunity to assess how big the gap is, and how he can move forward ahead of meetings with Egyptian and Palestinian leaders next week.
Our correspondent says Mr Netanyahu came to Washington with his own list of priorities, topped by Iran's nuclear programme.
"There's never been a time when Arabs and Israelis see a common threat the way we see it today," the Israeli prime minister said.
Mr Obama said "it is not in Iran's interest" to develop nuclear arms, and that the US would keep options open.
He stressed that "we should have some sense by the end of the year" on whether talks with Iran were bearing fruit.
Amid reports from Israel that the authorities were moving ahead with plans to expand a Jewish settlement in the occupied West Bank, Mr Obama said Israel had an obligation to stop Jewish settlement activity.
Tenders have been issued to build 20 housing units in Maskiot, a former Israeli military base that has been designated for housing settlers removed from Gaza in 2005.
Israeli campaign group Peace Now says this is a clear message to Washington that the Israeli government intends to expand settlements, which are considered illegal under international law.
After their first talks since both took office, Mr Obama restated his support for a two-state plan and said the US would be "engaged in the process".
He also said Israel had an obligation under the 2003 "roadmap" to stop Jewish settlement in the West Bank.
Mr Netanyahu said he was ready to start peace talks "immediately" but refrained from endorsing a Palestinian state.
After their meeting in Washington, Mr Obama said he had suggested the Israeli prime minister had a "historic opportunity to get a serious movement" on Palestinian statehood.
I firmly believe it is not in Iran's interest to develop nuclear weapons
Mr Netanyahu said Israel was ready to live "side by side" with Palestinians and he could resume talks immediately, but any agreement depended on Palestinian acceptance of Israel's right to exist "as a Jewish state", he added.
Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat reacted with derision to Mr Netanyahu's remarks.
"How can I govern myself by myself as a Palestinian with his occupation going on on my neck on the hour every hour? With his roadblocks segregating our towns and villages and refugee camps?" he said.
A Hamas official, Musher al-Masri, said the Americans still were not treating Israel and the Palestinians even-handedly.
In Israel itself, right-wingers said they were worried the Americans were moving away from their commitment to Israel's security, while opposition Kadima politicians said Mr Netanyahu had missed the chance to forge real trust with President Obama.
Nuclear Iran
The BBC's Kim Ghattas in Washington says Mr Obama was clearly putting the onus on Mr Netanyahu to accept a Palestinian state
The differences between the two men are still there, she says, adding that the meeting has given Mr Obama an opportunity to assess how big the gap is, and how he can move forward ahead of meetings with Egyptian and Palestinian leaders next week.
Our correspondent says Mr Netanyahu came to Washington with his own list of priorities, topped by Iran's nuclear programme.
"There's never been a time when Arabs and Israelis see a common threat the way we see it today," the Israeli prime minister said.
Mr Obama said "it is not in Iran's interest" to develop nuclear arms, and that the US would keep options open.
He stressed that "we should have some sense by the end of the year" on whether talks with Iran were bearing fruit.
Amid reports from Israel that the authorities were moving ahead with plans to expand a Jewish settlement in the occupied West Bank, Mr Obama said Israel had an obligation to stop Jewish settlement activity.
Tenders have been issued to build 20 housing units in Maskiot, a former Israeli military base that has been designated for housing settlers removed from Gaza in 2005.
Israeli campaign group Peace Now says this is a clear message to Washington that the Israeli government intends to expand settlements, which are considered illegal under international law.
'Clever' bra lifts boobs on arousal!
The next time you want a man to know that you desire him - just let your "smart memory bra" do the talking!
A brassiere that lifts the bust when a woman is aroused has been unveiled at a lingerie exhibition in Paris.
The "smart memory bras" have heat-sensitive foam which pushes up boobs as sexual attraction causes body temperature to rise, reports The Sun.
As the body cools down, the foam relaxes and the bust appears normal again. Inventors at the Slovenia-based Lisca lingerie firm stumbled on the concept when developing bras that adapt to changing weather conditions.
Designer Suzana Gorisek said: "As the body changes, so does the bra." The revolutionary lingerie will hit British stores in summer for around 25-pound each.
A spokesman for Lisca said: "It's healthier than an ordinary bra because it will always provide the perfect fit."
A brassiere that lifts the bust when a woman is aroused has been unveiled at a lingerie exhibition in Paris.
The "smart memory bras" have heat-sensitive foam which pushes up boobs as sexual attraction causes body temperature to rise, reports The Sun.
As the body cools down, the foam relaxes and the bust appears normal again. Inventors at the Slovenia-based Lisca lingerie firm stumbled on the concept when developing bras that adapt to changing weather conditions.
Designer Suzana Gorisek said: "As the body changes, so does the bra." The revolutionary lingerie will hit British stores in summer for around 25-pound each.
A spokesman for Lisca said: "It's healthier than an ordinary bra because it will always provide the perfect fit."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)