Summary
Mark Carney has been elected as the new Liberal Party leader in Canada with a commanding 85.9% of votes, following Justin Trudeau’s resignation.
The former Bank of Canada and Bank of England governor will become Canada’s 24th prime minister within days.
In his victory speech, Carney took aim at both Donald Trump and Canadian Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre, vowing to maintain Canada’s tariffs until Americans “show us respect.”
Carney, despite never holding elected office, enters leadership as Canada faces trade tensions with the U.S. and a potential early election. He must secure a parliamentary seat and finalize the transition with Trudeau.
Carney was governor of the Bank of Canada during the 2008 crash, and did so well that Canada climbed out of the recession/depression quicker than most other nations.
He then went on to become the first non-UK citizen (since the 1600s) to lead the Bank of England during the Brexit crisis. He advised Boris Johnson to not go through with it, but Boris decided to anyway. Many believe that is why the UK has, until recently, held onto a relative economic stability – but even now are also discussing trying to rejoin the EU.
I watched Carney back in 2008-09 when he spoke to Parliament … he didn’t lie, he never waffled on the possible dangers we faced, and he worked hard to pull us through.
He is a different kind of man, and a different kind of economist. He’ll do great as our PM.
Carney’s economic record is stellar, but governing demands more: public trust, coalition-building, and political foresight.
His leadership during the 2008 crash and Brexit showcased technical brilliance, yet these roles lacked the messy compromises of politics. Advising Boris Johnson was impactful, but it’s not equivalent to leading a nation divided by ideology.
Integrity matters, but so do adaptability and vision—qualities Carney hasn’t demonstrated in the political arena.
😺😺😺
And yet Carney doesn’t exist in a vacuum.
I would opine that the other party leaders are MORE susceptible to the criticisms you leveled at Carney.
PP has shown no ability or interest in forming coalitions or an ability to adapt to changing situations. He has no successes to his name in or out of parliament. What he HAS shown is an affinity for gotchas, sloganeering and playing political games with national security (does he even have clearance yet?)
Comparing Carney to PP is a weak deflection. Leadership isn’t about who’s less flawed; it’s about who can effectively govern. Carney’s economic expertise is undeniable, but public trust and coalition-building are critical, especially in a fractured political landscape. His past roles lacked the messy compromises of real politics, leaving doubts about his adaptability and vision.
Your critique of PP is speculative and irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Whether PP has clearance or plays political games doesn’t absolve Carney of his own deficiencies. This strawman argument shifts focus away from evaluating Carney’s ability to lead, which remains the core issue.
Deflection doesn’t strengthen your case—it weakens it. Leadership demands scrutiny, not comparisons.
😾😾😾
I really don’t understand the difference…
Why is PP’s past “speculative and irrelevant” but Carney’s isn’t? If anything, we’ve seen PP be lackluster and ineffective in Parliament while any comments about Carney are speculative.
And during an election where we have limited options comparison is necessary and unavoidable