Lame duck (politics)
Conversely, a lame duck is free to make decisions that exercise the standard powers with little fear of consequence, such as issuing executive orders, pardons, or other controversial edicts.
The status can be due to: Since these politicians do not face the consequences of their actions in an upcoming election, they have greater freedom to issue unpopular decisions or appointments.
In more recent history, US President Bill Clinton was widely criticized for issuing 140 pardons and other acts of executive clemency on his last day in office, including two former close colleagues, donors, fellow Democratic members, and his own half-brother.
[citation needed] The first time the phrase is known to have been used in its metaphorical sense was in the 18th century; it was used at the London Stock Exchange to refer to a stockbroker who defaulted on his debts.
"[6] And in 1791, Mary Berry wrote that the Duchess of Devonshire's loss of £50,000 (equivalent to £7,000,000 in 2023)[7] in stocks was "the conversation of the town," and that her name was to be "posted up as a lame duck".
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.
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.
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.
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.
In the case of a hung parliament where the election is followed by negotiations to form a coalition, or an attempt by the leader of the largest party to lead a minority government, a new prime minister may not be appointed for a few days.
In the 2010 election for example, which was held on May 6, Gordon Brown's Labour Party lost its majority in the Commons, but Brown remained caretaker prime minister until May 11, resigning when it became clear that the Conservative Party (which held a plurality) had reached a coalition agreement with the Liberal Democrats, whereupon the Conservative leader David Cameron was appointed prime minister.
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.
[24] 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.
[30][31] Additionally, 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 a multiyear contract if they are expected to be fired shortly before or once the season ends.
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.
