America as Parliamentary Democracy, 2002-Present

HOUSE OF COMMONS HANSARD
August 20, 2003

Speaker Dennis Hastert:
The member for San Francisco North and Central [Ms. Pelosi] is recognized.

Ms. Nancy Pelosi (Lab): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to inform the House that I have been elected as leader of the parliamentary Labour Party, and I hereby submit the official Shadow Ministry for the Labour Party parliamentary caucus for inclusion in the official record of the Commons.

The Speaker: The clerk will read the submitted document into the record.

LABOUR PARTY SHADOW MINISTRY
Submitted as of August 20, 2003


  • Leader of the Labour Party: Nancy Pelosi
  • Manager of Legislative Business: Harry Reid
  • Chief Whip: James Clyburn
  • Treasury: Richard Durbin
  • Foreign Affairs: Carl Levin
  • Defense: John Reed
  • Home Affairs: Thomas Harkin
  • Justice: Joseph Biden
  • Health & Social Services: Barack Obama
  • Education: Barbara Mikulski
  • Energy: Henry Waxman
  • Business & Commerce: Christopher Dodd
  • Agriculture: John Edwards
  • Employment: Sherrod Brown
  • Transportation: John Conyers
[end excerpt]
 
The Nation Magazine, August 28, 2003

PELOSI SHADOW MINISTRY AFFIRMS LABOUR'S ANTI-WAR STANCE
By Charlene Gibbs

While Nancy Pelosi's victory at the Labour leadership conference came as little surprise to anyone in attendance, one question remained cause for some concern among left-wing riding association delegates. Would her pledges of party unity mean a softening in the anti-war stance that she had articulated as interim leader? Or would the party's left, which broke heavily in Pelosi's favor against Joe Biden after Dennis Kucinich was eliminated, find that their trust was well-placed?

Based on the composition of the new Labour shadow ministry, it would seem that anti-war voices need not have worried. While two of the 11 Labour MPs who voted to authorize the war last October - Biden and Chris Dodd - received front-bench positions, the key foreign policy portfolios went to war opponents Carl Levin (Foreign Affairs) and Jack Reed (Defense). Biden, whose return to the front bench was expected after his second-place finish in the leadership race, will again take up the Justice portfolio that he held under Bill Clinton's Liberal-Labour coalition government, while Dodd's appointment to Business and Commerce will similarly keep his attention focused on domestic issues.

Kucinich's absence came as a disappointment to some, but Labour sources have quietly confirmed in the following days that he was indeed offered the Employment portfolio but chose to turn it down and remain on the back benches. While neither he nor any other members of the hard left will hold a foreign policy or security portfolio, the presence of Barbara Mikulski, Sherrod Brown, John Conyers, and Henry Waxman ensures that several of the party's most progressive voices will play a role in articulating and forming Labour's domestic policies.

Meanwhile, rising star Barack Obama, who opposed the war but has sometimes sounded sympathetic to a Tony Blair-esque "New Labour" approach on the economy, keeps his position as Shadow Minister for Health and Social Services. It remains unclear what role health care will play in next year's election, but Obama and Pelosi will need to make a decision on how heavily to emphasize the party's traditional stance in favor of universal coverage and whether to focus on private subsidies or public benefits as the means for achieving it. Should domestic issues return to the forefront of American politics any time soon, Obama could find himself in the spotlight.

Rounding out the Shadow Ministry are Harry Reid and James Clyburn, who are staying on as manager of legislative business and chief whip, respectively, as well as fourth-place leadership contender John Edwards, who takes up the Agriculture portfolio. Though a strong speaker with a compelling personal story, Edwards is a relative newcomer who proved unable to break through against Pelosi, Biden, and Kucinich, who have been in parliament longer and are more established in Labour politics. Still, Edwards is one to watch, and a strong performance in his new job could open the door to a promotion further down the line.

Pelosi's measured and inclusive approach was perhaps the single biggest factor in her victory at the convention, and if this ideologically balanced shadow ministry is any indication, her permanent leadership will likely look a lot like her interim leadership did.
 
A couple notes for everyone not familiar with the customs of Westminster-style parliamentary democracies:

1) These systems typically involve a regularly scheduled period of time during which the Prime Minister and other Cabinet members are expected to appear in the House and answer questions directly from both their own side and the opposition parties. The "Leader of the Opposition" (i.e. the leader of the largest non-governing party) and the leaders of significant third parties often get more time to ask questions than other members. If you haven't ever seen one of these sessions, they tend to get *very* rowdy, with the Speaker (who is expected to act as more of a neutral entity) often having to rein people in.

2) "Hansard" is, for whatever reason, the official name of the recorded transcripts of legislative proceedings in the UK, Australia, and Canada (possibly New Zealand too, I haven't checked). I'm following formatting conventions that I've noticed in the UK and Australian versions for this, and will likely return to this format from time to time.
 
Question Period, April 2004

April 5, 2004
HOUSE OF COMMONS HANSARD – QUESTION PERIOD

The Speaker: Order. Questions for the Prime Minister: I call the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. John Kerry (Lib): Mr. Speaker, today we received news that both of the main hospitals in the city of Fallujah have been closed due to the heavy fighting between our own military forces and Iraqi insurgents. Would the Prime Minister now agree that, a year after beginning what was supposed to be a war of liberation for an oppressed people, the planning for long-term security in Iraq was not, and is not, adequate?

Prime Minister George W. Bush (Con): Well, Mr. Speaker, if the leader of the opposition is concerned about security in Fallujah, he ought to send a clearer message of support for our troops on the ground fighting there right now. It was necessary to close the hospitals in order to maintain security during these operations, and obviously we hope they can be reopened as soon as possible. But Fallujah will never be secure until these terrorists are defeated.

Mr. Kerry: Mr. Speaker, I have stated time and time again that every man and woman who wears the uniform of our armed forces have my complete and unequivocal support. Can the Prime Minister not acknowledge that questions about the management of this conflict are in no way a criticism of the performance of our troops?

Prime Minister Bush: What I will acknowledge, Mr. Speaker, is that our troops look to this Government and this Parliament to present a united front. What kind of message would I be sending to our soldiers fighting in Fallujah right now if I started dissecting every element of our policy in public? That’s not what a responsible Prime Minister does, and that’s not what a responsible Leader of the Opposition ought to do.

Mr. Kerry: Mr. Speaker, this Government has run the most reckless, arrogant, inept, and ideological foreign policy in the modern history of this country, and now they’re going to come here and lecture the opposition about responsibility? The Government had the warnings from General Shinseki that their plan was inadequate, they ignored them, and now they are seeing the consequences. Why can the Prime Minister not admit that a new strategy is needed?

Prime Minister Bush: Mr. Speaker, no strategy is ever perfect, and of course we work with our generals every day to refine our approach and deal with threats from extremists as they arise. I don’t think it’s reckless to go on the offense against threats to our national security instead of waiting around for them to attack us. I don’t think it’s arrogant to suggest that the people of Iraq deserve their chance at freedom. I don’t think it’s inept to remove a brutal dictator from power who supported terrorism. And I certainly don’t think it’s ideological to make it clear that this Government will always act to defend America and keep our people safe.

Mr. James Traficant (Ind): Put troops on the borders if you want to keep us safe!

The Speaker: Order. The member for San Francisco–

Mr. Traficant: It’s a betrayal of your oath leaving the border unguarded!

Honorable members interjecting –

The Speaker: Order! The member for Youngstown and Canton [Mr. Traficant] will remove himself from the chamber for one hour under the provisions of Article 21B.

Mr. Traficant rose to exit the chamber.

The Speaker: I call the member–

Mr. Traficant: Beam me up!

Honorable members laughing and interjecting –

The Speaker: Order! Order! Now, the member for Youngstown and Canton has been instructed to leave the chamber. I strongly suggest that he do so with haste, and to cease making a spectacle of himself, unless he wants to incur an additional penalty.

Mr. Traficant exited the chamber.

The Speaker: I now call the member for San Francisco North and Central.

Mr. Barney Frank (Lab): The leader of the real opposition!

Honorable members interjecting –

The Speaker: Order. The member for San Francisco North and Central has the call.

Ms. Nancy Pelosi (Lab): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On January 28 of last year, the Prime Minister stated that Saddam Hussein posed an imminent threat to the United States and that to remove him from power would make America safer. Since then, no weapons of mass destruction have been found, and the Home Secretary himself said last week that the threat of terrorism has remained as high as it was before the war. Does the Prime Minister still stand by that statement?

Mr. Richard Cheney (Con): Ask the member for Delaware [Mr. Biden].

Mr. Joseph Biden (Lab): Oh, come on!

Prime Minister Bush:
Mr. Speaker, absolutely I stand by that statement. Saddam Hussein’s regime did have a program to develop advanced weaponry, and I don’t think it makes sense to sit back and give the benefit of the doubt to a man who used chemical weapons in the Iran-Iraq War, who invaded another sovereign country, and whose security forces committed atrocities against his own people. If 9/11 taught us anything, it’s that we cannot wait around for the enemy to attack us. And you know, my Right Honorable friend the Deputy Prime Minister makes a good point – if liberating Iraq was such a terrible idea, why did the Labour Party’s own Justice spokesman say that we should hold Saddam accountable for his violations of international law?

Ms. Pelosi: Mr. Speaker, the responsibility for the decision to go to war did not, and does not, rest with the member for Delaware. It rests with the Prime Minister. And since he made that decision, we’ve seen relationships with allies growing weaker, we’ve seen resources diverted away from the fight against Al-Qaeda, and most tragically, we continue to see American soldiers and Iraqi civilians losing their lives almost every single day in a conflict that shows no signs of abating. Why can’t the Prime Minister just say three simple words: “I was wrong”?

Prime Minister Bush: Well, Mr. Speaker, I don’t think I ever said that the war in Iraq was going to be easy.

Mr. Alcee Hastings (Lab): Your defense secretary did!

Prime Minister Bush: The fact is, the campaign to –

Mr. Hastings: What about the defense secretary? He said it!

The Speaker: Order. The member for Broward Central will cease interjecting. The Prime Minister has the call.

Prime Minister Bush: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I think the member for Broward Central is really distorting the Defense Secretary’s words there. The fact is, the campaign to remove Saddam Hussein did conclude quickly. Obviously, the fight to contain and defeat the extremists is going to take time, and my heart goes out to each and every one of the soldiers and civilians who have been wounded and killed in this conflict. But you don’t defeat terrorists by letting them gain new footholds in Iraq. And I’ll say this much: I’d much rather be fighting terrorists in Iraq than fighting them here in America.

[end excerpt]
 
Last edited:
Top