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 is a neo-liberal banker. Him being the best option really isn’t a good thing.
Canada’s new PM is a banker with no political experience—what could possibly go wrong? Clear reporting but lacks deeper analysis of Carney’s potential strategies.
🐱🐱🐱
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?)
Is this good? For you guys? I hope so. Canada is now the guiding star.
Compared to Pierre Poilievre (Maple MAGA forgone winner of the next election before Trudeau resigned)… 10000000000000x better
Overall? probably a bit better than usual
I just heard that many companies are simply eating the tariff costs and going us only…probably spiraling into a path leading to their eventual demise and the loss of investor money. All this will hurt everyone in the US at some point if not already. But its just gonna hit real hard.
He has a PhD in Economics and was the head of the Bank of Canada and more recently the head of the Bank of England. So yeah……can’t think of a better resume to navigate us through a trade war.
Worth noting he was head of Bank of Canada during the 08 crash and was pretty widely lauded for navigating it so well. So he’s proven himself in a crisis.
Would I prefer someone further left? Of course, but as long as we live in a market economy we may as well have someone knowledgeable about it and who has at least expressed a desire to make it more fair.
According to this 2013 BBC article:
My conclusions? He didn’t singlehandedly rescue the Canadians from the worst of the global financial crisis - he didn’t really need to. But boy, did he win over the press.
This is a man who established a reputation as a “working-class hero” to many Canadians, despite having spent 13 years at Goldman Sachs.
I don’t know anything about him, but given the current economic climate, I’m skeptical. Hopefully he’s good for Canada, and can deal with the economic catastrophe Trump is creating.
No, he pushed mass immigration, in order to derive what he calls economic growth as we trade homes back and forth for ever larger sums, as zoning and developer fees prevent new development.
Housing and rents doubled in 10 years as we did 4% population growth and bought 50% of mortgage bonds, all as he was a Liberal advisor. He’s a champaign socialist like our NDP, and we have no real worker parties left.
No, he pushed mass immigration
When? as the head of the Bank of Canada under Harper?!
The last 5 years he’s been advising Trudeau.
If your rents doubled while your population increase was only 4%, it sounds like immigration wasn’t the issue, now was it?
Blaming poor people for the housing bubble is like blaming a fish for the rain. Look up.
The problem is nimbyism, sprawled zoning, and large developer taxes used to lower property taxes; which is why matching immigration to housing completions is important, and an obvious thing to do if you care about the poor.
But people downvote criticism of their faux progressives. People got a whole 400$ in dental work as their rents doubled, wholly unfunded and paid with future austerity of course.
Our population increased by 10 million during Trudeau. As a homeowner I’m not complaining lol
Oh. I’m sorry. I guess then pay attention as to how trump’s story goes. I don’t know now how it’s going to go. I hope to be dead by then.
Id guess it knocks over Canada’s housing bubble they built, and we have a lost decade like Japan due to trillions in misallocated capital.
Its mainly full recourse loans as well, its incredibly irresponsible to do mass immigration and stoke demand to distort the market. Its almost like they wilfully broke our country to push climate policy, I can’t see any other way to explain it.
I really hope he does well! His past history in banking and financial sector should help in the tariffs situation.
Is this reporting true?
After maintaining frontrunner status throughout the two-month race, the former Bank of Canada and Bank of England governor will become this country’s next, and 24th prime minister within days.
How does an unelected banker walk into becoming Prime Minister? Doesn’t he need to be elected by Canadians first?
If true, that seems like a horrendous hole in the system.
The PM is like a mayor; they have no actual power (that doesn’t flow from the assembly). Theirs is the face of a legislative body. That body can choose anyone they wish to be their Prime Minister. Essentially, at any time. Parliament governs Canada, not the Prime Minister.
The PM must keep confidence of their own party and MPs. If the party loses confidence in the leader, the leader is turfed. See what happened to JT, his caucus lost confidence in him and he was forced out. I am looking forward to watching the CPC force Millhouse out once he loses.
Because people hated Trudeau that much, prior to. his “Trump is dumb” era and the opposition leader is horrifying. An investment banker who has advocated that we not allow our financial system to be Americanized is the best hope we have in unifying the country against the Mini magas.
Good chance you’re a troll, but maybe take 5 minutes and look up how Canadian elections work?
Hmm… 2 almost identical comments below mine. That isn’t suspicions at all
Even if the original question was asked in bad faith (not that I think this was the case here, but to address what you’re implying with this comment), responding with “go look it up elsewhere” doesn’t negate its effect for anyone reading. I believe it plays into those bad faith hands because it looks like you don’t want the question answered here to anyone already suspicious of the situation.
Why discuss anything at all? Why ask any sort of question in a forum? After all, we can just look everything up.
It’s how parliamentary democracy works. The Prime Minister (PM) is elected by Members of Parliament (MPs) who are, in turn, directly elected by canadians. Typically, the Prime Minister is the leader of the largest party, but not always since a coalition of smaller parties could theoretically band together to elect their choice for PM. Carney was just elected leader of The Liberal Party of Canada, the largest party currently sitting in the Canadian lower house, by members of said party.
Our head of state and commander in chief is King Charles III, whose power is severely limited by constitutional and conventional traditions. Typically, in a parliamentary system, the head of state is merely a figurehead with no ability to influence policy directly.
Our Cabinet, unlike in the American Presidential system where cabinet members are unelected and appointed by the executive, are by convention chosen by the PM from amongst the directly elected MPs.
The PM can be forced to resign, alongside their Cabinet of Ministers, when a majority of MPs support a ‘motion/vote of no confidence.’ An election can be called at any time, with the maximum period between elections being 4 years.
This system of governance is shared with most Parliamentary and Semi-Presidential democracies with some minor differences.
Thanks for that summary. I think the big gap in my understanding is that the PM doesn’t even have to be an elected official. They essentially always are, but not having that codified is a surprise.
In my nightmare scenario, the cons eke out a majority, toss Pierre, and name Elon Musk as PM is Canada.
They can’t toss Pierre. He would have to step down (like Trudeau) or die. Then the party re-elects a new head who would become PM until an election is called or required as mentioned earlier, we will have an election no later than October this year.
One catch: members of the House of Commons have to be elected to have a seat on the floor where debates and voting happens, so until elected in a byelection or national, Carney will be watching from the gallery and directing someone to put out his opinions. It happens sometimes in Parliament. Much of his work will be in meetings anyway.
It is definitely atypical for the PM not to be a sitting MP, but it is within the confines of the constitution. The PM only needs to be elected by and then maintain the confidence of parliament.
It’s almost certain that he will call an election immediately, however. A non sitting PM won’t maintain parliamentary confidence for long.
Or a Liberal MP in a safe seat will resign and Carney will stand in the subsequent by-election.
