Lame duck (politics)

In Australia, regardless of when the election is held, the Senate (upper house) sits from July 1 following the election to June 30 six years later, while the newly elected members of the House of Representatives (lower house) take their seats immediately after an election. A Senate that is destined to lose its majority as a result of such a change is called a lame-duck Senate and often attracts criticism if it blocks Government measures introduced in the House of Representatives.

For example, after the 2004 election, it became clear that the governing Liberal Party/National Party coalition would gain a majority in the new Senate, which was due to sit the following July. In May, some months after the elections but before the new Senate came to power, the old Senate refused to pass new tax laws that had been passed by the House, which served to merely delay the passage of those laws until the new Senate assembled.

In the 2010 Australian federal election, Senator Steve Fielding of the minor party Family First lost his seat and subsequently threatened to block supply if the Labor Party was successful in forming a minority government.

Unlike the United States Congress, there is no "lame duck" session of Parliament in most Commonwealth countries between the general election and swearing in of elected officials. In almost all cases, the outgoing prime minister or premier hands over power directly to their designated successor after a leadership contest or general election. Usually, when the leader of a ruling party steps down, they also relinquish their caucus leadership role at around the same time, so there is no need for an interim caucus leader. After an election retiring/defeated members of United States Congress do continue to wield their full authority until their term ends, by contrast the power of outgoing Canadian parliamentarians is limited. Instead the departing prime minister or premier and cabinet ministers that were members of the now dissolved parliament will serve in an "acting" or "caretaker" capacity (i.e. not being able to make important appointments nor policy declarations) until the new parliament convenes; in one example when Sir Charles Tupper attempted to make appointments after losing the 1896 Canadian election the Governor General refused to act on this.

A notable exception to the above is the transition between William Lyon Mackenzie King and Louis St. Laurent, making it perhaps the only lame duck example in Canadian federal politics. After resigning the leadership of the Liberals, King became parliamentary leader and continued as Prime Minister of Canada for some months following the leadership election of his successor, St. Laurent, who became party leader but continued as a member of King's cabinet during this time.

While Pierre Trudeau retired from politics in 1984, he directly handed power over to John Turner after the leadership contest. However, Trudeau recommended that Governor General Jeanne Sauvé appoint over 200 Liberals to well-paying patronage positions, including Senators, judges, and executives on various governmental and crown corporation boards, widely seen as a way to offer "plum jobs" to loyal party members. These appointments generated a severe backlash across the spectrum.[11] Turner had the right to recommend that the appointments be cancelled: advice that Sauvé would have been required to follow by constitutional convention. However, he let them stand and made a further 70 appointments himself.[11] Turner refused to produce a written agreement he had made with Trudeau before taking office, documenting a secret deal that saw Trudeau step down early. This is seen by many as Trudeau attempting to exercise some lame duck influence before resigning as Prime Minister.[11][12]

In 1984, a constitutional crisis arose when the outgoing "lame duck" Prime Minister Robert Muldoon refused to follow the wishes of a new incoming government led by David Lange.[13] This was the only time in New Zealand where a "lame duck" Prime Minister did not follow the wishes of the incoming government.

An example is the premiership of Tony Blair who before the 2005 United Kingdom general election announced that he would not serve another full term before standing down. However, the fact that Blair's Labour Party was returned with a substantially reduced majority and that Gordon Brown (who was correctly believed to be Blair's successor) had played a leading part in the election campaign, aroused considerable speculation about Blair's future as party leader and prime minister.[14]

The lame ducks depicted in this Clifford K. Berryman cartoon are defeated Democrats heading to the White House hoping to secure political appointments from then President Woodrow Wilson.

In U.S. politics, the period between (presidential and congressional) elections in November and the inauguration of officials early in the following year is commonly called the "lame duck period". A president is a lame duck after a successor has been elected, during which time the outgoing president and president-elect usually embark on a transition of power.

Until 1933, inaugurations occurred on March 4. Congress usually had two sessions, the second of which was usually held from the December after the election of the next Congress until March. This session was commonly called the "lame duck session". Criticism of this process led to the passage of the 20th Amendment in 1933, which moved the beginning of the new Congress to January 3 and the inauguration of the president to January 20, thus shortening the lame duck period.

A president elected to a second term is sometimes seen as a lame duck from early in the second term, since term limits prevent them from contesting re-election four years later. However, not personally having to face the electorate again makes a second-term president more powerful than they were in their first term as they are thus freer to take politically unpopular actions. However this comes with caveats, as the de facto leader of their political party, the president's actions affect how the party performs in the midterm elections two years into the second term, and, to some extent, the success of that party's nominee in the next presidential election four years in the future. For these reasons, it can be argued that a president in their second term is not a lame duck at all.

In his farewell speech from the office of president in January 2017 Barack Obama jokingly quipped, "You can tell that I'm a lame duck because nobody's following instructions" when the cheering and applause from the crowd prevented him from commencing his speech.

On February 11, 2013, when Pope Benedict XVI announced that he was resigning within 17 days, he was called a lame duck pope by some media outlets.[15] Also, due to Pope John Paul II's long and debilitating illness, some journalists (such as TIME's Jeff Israely) described the final years of his reign as a lame duck papacy.[16]

The discontent with the ruling United Socialist Party of Venezuela saw the opposition being elected to hold the majority in the National Assembly of Venezuela for the first time since 1999 following the 2015 parliamentary election.[17] As a result of that election, the lame duck National Assembly consisting of United Socialist officials filled the Supreme Tribunal with allies.[17][18] Into early 2016, the Supreme Court alleged that voting irregularities occurred in the parliamentary elections and stripped four Assembly members of their seats, preventing an opposition supermajority in the National Assembly which would be able to challenge President Maduro.[17] The Assembly nevertheless swore in the members in question, in response to which the Supreme Court ruled that the Assembly was in contempt of court and in violation of the constitutional order.[19] The Trbunal then began to approve multiple actions performed by Maduro and granted him more powers.[17] later stripped the National Assembly of legislative powers, and took those powers for itself; which meant that the Tribunal might have been able to create laws, causing the 2017 constitutional crisis.[20]

In sports usage, a coach or general manager in the final year of their contract without a forthcoming contact extension is often described as a lame duck.[21][22]

However, if a team is on track to miss the playoffs, a coach or general manager can be regarded as a lame duck even if they are under multiyear contracts, if they are expected to be fired shortly before or once the season ends.[23] Often taking the blame as the team is out of contention for the postseason, the coach or/and general manager is seen as a poor fit or otherwise does not relate well with others – players and other coaches, the media, his superiors and so forth – and a change in leadership is apparently forthcoming or desired. Often, there will be rumors of a coach and/or manager departure – often by dismissal or forced resignation (also known as "by mutual consent") – with said rumors often beginning several games before the end of the season. Dismissal of the coach and/or manager once the team is eliminated from reaching the postseason, rather than waiting for the conclusion of the season, does cut short their "lame duck" status and clears the way for new hires. In that case, an interim coach and/or interim manager will be appointed to see out the remainder of the season, though their predecessors may still remain on the club payroll as a "special advisor" until their contracts expires.[24]

Especially in the United Kingdom, a "lame duck company" is one that is in such financial difficulty that it is not worth investing in, or is unworthy of government support.[25]