How Canada's Mark Carney plans to win over Donald Trump
On Mark Carney's final day of a gruelling race to be elected PM of vast and sparsely populated Canada I was with him.It was his last push, not just to win, but also to get the majority he said he needed to stand up to the chaotic territorial and trade ambitions of his "neighbour to the south".For someone who had got to see Carney as a cerebral technocrat, a crisis-managing central bank governor a decade ago, the transformation into public orator was quite something. I recall endless interviews trying to get the then governor to say something newsworthy, or something that would make a good headline. While this was a very different Mark Carney, the lineage in crisis economics was also part of his sell. Carney told his audience in Edmonton, Alberta, sporting the local Oilers hockey shirt: "President Trump has ruptured the global economy... America's leadership of the global economy is over. It's still in play, but it is a tragedy, and our new reality… in this trade war, just like in hockey, we will win". His supporters shouted "Elbows Up" and put them up, a reference to a stand up and fight back posture in the occasionally rough game of ice hockey. "What we are seeing around the country is Canadians acting on behalf of other Canadians, standing up for each other, buying from each other, travelling here..."At his very final stop in the far West, in the isolation of Victoria, Vancouver Island, with only half an hour of campaigning allowed, Carney went "unplugged" among supporters."As the assembled media will tell you, I campaigned in prose," Carney joked. "So I'm going to govern in econometrics," he said of the nerdy mathematical strain of economics.In normal circumstances, some of this might be interesting to the wider world. In current circumstances, the origins of his election win, his approach to policy making, and the nature of his mandate, could assume critical importance.When I caught up with him for the BBC exclusive interview, just as the polls were closing on Monday, he appeared confident but was taking nothing for granted.
Fighting threats to sovereignty
Mr Carney's central argument remained consistent. He said he was the leader to take on Donald Trump's "betrayal" and threats to Canada's economy and sovereignty.It was exemplified by his final large rally on the US-Canada border, with the Ambassador Bridge and a skyline of iconic Detroit motoring firms behind him. This bridge is the main artery of Canadian-US trade. A lot of effort went into this backdrop of the two-way trade of the most integrated economies in the world, now tariffed at unimaginable levels. An unsubtle message from the Liberal Party leader, about a changed continent.The election result was staggering. Entering 2025, the Liberal Party was as low as 16%, versus 45% for the opposition Conservatives, in opinion polls. Pierre Poilievre's Conservatives were not just heading for victory, but for a total landslide. But then following President Trump's imposition of national security tariffs on Canada, using the pretext of an alleged role in fentanyl traffic, and then his undiplomatic suggestion that Canada should join the USA, the polls tightened. Then after Mark Carney was elected Liberal leader, just eight weeks ago, the Liberals achieved a consistent poll lead, which they rode to victory last week.The election became a presidential-style verdict on who could cope with Trump. Poilievre was fundamentally weakened by previous overtures to the US president and his style of government. Carney incorporated voters on the left who were scared of a Conservative government amplified by Trump. And incredibly, in Quebec, the Liberals won back support from separatists, who were more concerned about Canada's independence from the US, than their own constitutional status within Canada. There is nothing more unifying than a credible external threat.
Carney's strategy
Carney gave some clues to his strategy during his interview with me. He talked of a "win win" partnership with the US, and reminded the president that Canada was the "biggest client" of 40 of the 50 US states, and a key energy and fertiliser supplier. He also told me he "potentially could supply them with critical minerals". This struck me as a negotiation tactic very targeted at what Trump has become fixated on elsewhere. Canada has ample resources of critical minerals, and would be a much more dependable supplier across the West than many other nations. Carney is implicitly suggesting, however, that his country has deep strategic choices to make here, on for example, developing them with Europe rather than the US.In any event, the PM will use the impetus of external threat to try to transform the Canadian economy. Even in the granting of an interview to BBC News, it was clear that he sees a critical need to diversify trade and strategic alliances. Defence partnerships are now on the cards. He seemed to acknowledge that a stalled Canada-UK trade deal could be expedited.On Friday he pulled off the historic announcement that King Charles would reopen the Canadian parliament in person at the end of the month. This has not happened since 1977. It is entirely in keeping with Canada's constitution, but it is also a stunning assertion of enduring independence from the White House.All roads now lead to the G7 Summit hosted by Carney in the middle of June in Alberta, bringing together the world's seven largest economies, which dominate global trade and the international financial system.Assuming that Trump comes, it will occur within days of the expiry of the pause in massive so-called "reciprocal tariffs" on most of the world. It is often forgotten that if Canada and Mexico free themselves from the fentanyl tariffs, they will then, according to White House advisers, find themselves subject to this system, with a minimum of 10% tariffs.All of this occurs within days of some growing frustration from America's traditional allies with the entire "trade deal" process. Japan is increasingly frustrated, with its finance minister now openly pointing to Japan's unbeaten holding of US government debt as a "card" in negotiations. The EU has not got very far. Even the UK has hinted that a deal with Europe may be a more effective way of boosting the economy.It comes as tariffs are starting to have a visible and tangible negative impact on US businesses and consumers.There is no great incentive to offer much up, while the US itself starts to feel the inevitable inflationary consequences of its actions. The flotilla of empty Chinese cargo ships and empty docks on the US West Coast will soon be seen in the economic data of an already shrinking US economy.As a veteran of economic crises arising from the uncertain experiments of governments, Carney might be uniquely placed on how these situations pan out. Many in the markets have been thoroughly unimpressed with the White House advisers sent out to reassure investors in recent weeks.But Carney too has his own challenges. He just missed out on a majority in parliament, but has chosen to try to project this as a virtue. He will reach across the aisle for a "Team Canada" approach to talks with the US. The Premier of the oil-rich Alberta state, who is a regular visitor to Mar-a-Lago, immediately announced moves to make separation referendums easier.This is a very complicated, domestic, continental and global environment economically and politically. Few would predict exactly where it goes. Carney may have a very large part in it, and not just for his own country.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
an hour ago
- The National
Farage's proposal is just the latest undermining of the Barnett system
This, according to senior criminologists and ex-police officers, is not just a failure of admin, it's the result of austerity-era cuts that stripped police forces of capacity, dismantled the state-run Forensic Science Service in 2012, and left fragmented, underfunded systems to cope with ballooning evidence demands. Austerity didn't just weaken institutions; it disassembled infrastructure. READ MORE: Nigel Farage could cut the Barnett Formula. Here's what devolution experts think of that While these failings may seem like an English and Welsh concern, they tell a broader UK-wide story. Because when public services are cut in England, the Barnett formula translates those cuts into reduced budget allocations for Holyrood, too. Scotland has long borne the dual burden of being denied full fiscal autonomy while also seeing its devolved budget squeezed by decisions made for entirely different priorities south of the Border. Cuts to police, criminal courts, housing, public health, and local government in England have systematically eroded the spending floor on which Scottish services rest. So when justice collapses in England, it affects Scotland financially – even if the governance is separate. And now, against this backdrop of UK-wide budgetary degradation, Nigel Farage has called for the scrapping of the Barnett formula entirely. It's a move that's politically convenient, historically illiterate, and economically reckless. But more than anything, it's a distillation of what's already happening by stealth. Successive UK governments have undermined the foundations of the Barnett system – and devolution itself – for more than a decade. READ MORE: Furious Anas Sarwar clashes with BBC journalist over Labour policies It's obvious to every Scot that Farage's view relies on a mischaracterisation of Barnett as a subsidy, when in fact it simply ensures Scotland receives a proportional share of changes to spending in England for devolved services. It doesn't calculate entitlement or need, it mirrors policy shifts at Westminster. If England increases education or health spending, Scotland sees a relative uplift. If England cuts deeply, Scotland's budget falls, even if demand remains or rises. This has led to an absurd and punitive dynamic where Scotland loses funding not by its own decisions, but because England spends less. And when Scotland chooses to maintain higher standards in public services, it must do so from a proportionately smaller pot. Perversely, it doesn't stop there, though. Since the 2016 Brexit vote, Westminster has begun bypassing devolved governments directly. Funds like the Levelling Up Fund and Shared Prosperity Fund are allocated by UK ministers to local authorities, often bypassing Holyrood entirely. Promises made in The Vow on the eve of the 2014 independence referendum to deliver near-federal powers and respect Scottish decision-making have unravelled. READ MORE: SNP must turn support for independence into 'real political action' The Internal Market Act has overridden devolved laws under the banner of market 'consistency'. Powers that returned from Brussels in areas like food standards, procurement, and agriculture were supposed to go to Holyrood, but in many cases they were retained by Westminster. The Sewel Convention, once a safeguard of devolved consent, has been treated as optional. Farage's proposal to scrap Barnett isn't an outlier, it's the natural conclusion of a decade-long pattern: cut services in England, shrink the Barnett allocation, bypass devolved institutions, and then blame the devolved nations for 'taking more than their share'. There's no consideration of fairness, or implementation of a needs-based analysis, it's a strategy of erosion; one that gouges out the Union from the centre while draping itself in the flag. The failures of justice in England, catastrophic as they are, expose a deeper injustice: the systematic unravelling of the constitutional promises made to Scotland. Ron Lumiere via email
Belfast Telegraph
an hour ago
- Belfast Telegraph
Declan Lynch: The BBC got us through endless Northern nights, Gerry Adams
The BBC is 'The British Broadcasting Corporation', but nobody calls it that except Gerry Adams. Again and again, very deliberately, as he savours his triumph in the recent libel action against 'The British Broadcasting Corporation', he gives it the full official title — almost as if the 'British' part has connotations of inherent badness. He claims that his purpose in taking the action was to 'put manners' on this British Broadcasting Corporation. There were even suggestions — later denied — that the BBC would consider blocking the transmission of its programmes in this country, rather than risk further exposure to our atrocious libel laws.
Telegraph
6 hours ago
- Telegraph
Alternatives to long-term care insurance and how to pay for care
The spiralling cost of long-term care is a concern for many in Britain's ageing population, especially since it can be difficult to get state support. Long-term care insurance used to offer individuals protection to help cover these costs, but these policies no longer exist. However, there are alternatives. Here, Telegraph Money explains what your options are to help meet care costs, and how much you might expect to pay. What is long-term care insurance? Why is it no longer available? Alternatives to long-term care insurance Cost of long-term care in the UK Can the Government fund long-term care? What is long-term care insurance? Long-term care insurance is a legacy product that provides protection for later in life care costs. The policies are no longer available on the market to buy, although customers may still be receiving payouts from existing plans. Policies provided holders with a regular income to pay fees for a nursing home or for home care, according to the Financial Ombudsman Service. This could include round-the-clock care in your home or for particular services, such as help with bathing and dressing. Why is it no longer available? Part of the reason long-term care insurance came to an end was the escalating costs of care and increasing life expectancy. Combined, this made it unaffordable for policy holders. As there is no cap on the cost of care in the UK, it became too hard to develop a workable product. Under Boris Johnson, the Conservatives had planned to introduce a £86,000 cap on the amount individuals would have to pay towards their own care costs, after which the state stepped in. However, since coming to power last year Labour has announced that it will not go ahead with the previous government's plan. As a result, many individuals will have to continue contributing high amounts to their care costs. There are around 130,000 care home residents who self-fund their care, according to the Office for National Statistics. Alternatives to long-term care insurance While long-term care insurance is no longer offered in the UK, there are other options that help meet individual care needs. However, they are not comprehensive and so you need to make sure you know what is and isn't covered and how that corresponds to your needs. It is also worth checking that you don't have an old long-term care insurance policy or existing coverage through long-standing life insurance. Care fee annuity A care fee annuity, also called an immediate needs annuity, is designed to bridge the gap between your income and the cost of your care for the long term. An immediate care annuity works in a similar way to a normal annuity, where you receive a guaranteed income – but the money goes directly to your care provider rather than to you. As the payment doesn't come to you it isn't classed as income, and therefore isn't taxable. It helps avoid a situation where you are left without the funds necessary to pay for care. However, this kind of product requires you to provide a named care provider in order to access the money, which means you must either already be receiving care, or you're just about to start receiving care and know which provider you'll be using. To buy an annuity of this kind it is best to find a financial planner specialising in long-term care. You may have to complete a medical assessment for a prospective provider so they can estimate your likely needs. Your annuity rate – the amount of money you are given – will depend on a variety of factors, including your age and medical history. It is also worth looking at an option to protect against fee rises by increasing your annuity payment annually by a fixed percentage or inflation. Sarah Pennells, consumer finance specialist at Royal London, said: ' Making decisions around care, for yourself or a parent, are never easy, but thinking about how you would pay care fees, ahead of any crisis, is a sensible approach to take. 'One of the options to consider is whether an 'immediate needs annuity' is right for you. There aren't many insurers who offer this product, but it can be bought at the point that you need care. 'In exchange for you paying a lump sum to an insurance company, it could pay your care costs for as long as you live. 'Although not cheap, as they can cost tens or even hundreds of thousands of pounds, these products can be a big help if you have capital or savings you want to preserve. 'However, depending on how quickly care home fees rise, they are not guaranteed to cover care home fees in full for as long as you need them.' Critical illness cover Critical illness cover is a form of life insurance that will pay out a lump sum if you are diagnosed with an illness covered by your policy. The policy holder can then use that money for any costs, such as necessary long-term care. However, you will need to ensure that your illness is covered by the policy to get a payout, otherwise you could be left with costs that aren't covered. Conditions that are likely to be covered include strokes, Alzheimer's and cancer. Critical illness insurance doesn't just cover care later in life, but can also be taken out at a younger age to protect against illness. Some providers also offer policies designed to provide cover for children. However, there may be a maximum age that you are still eligible to take out the policy. For Aviva, for example, it is 64. Prices for critical illness cover vary based on factors such as your age, health and level of coverage, but premiums can be as cheap as £12 a month with an average of £29 a month, according to comparison site MoneySupermarket.
