The news that former Bank of Canada and Bank of England governor Mark Carney is heading a Liberal Party economic growth task force has ushered in another round of speculation about what the man’s intentions are. Will he run for Parliament? Does he want to be Liberal leader?
Carney insists he’s here to help the country, serve current Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, and sort out economic and productivity issues. These are the sorts of challenges that keep members of the government up at night and, eventually, contribute to their political demise. The Liberals are well on their way with the latter, well behind in the polls and heading for a probable loss in the next federal election.
No prime minister since Wilfrid Laurier has won four elections in a row and Trudeau is reaching for the bar. He’s expected to miss — and Carney, whatever his plans, is being floated by Liberal insiders as a Trudeau replacement when the inevitable comes to pass. A loss would end Trudeau’s time in elected federal politics, which means someone would have to take over. Why not Carney?
Why not, indeed. Carney is accomplished and plainly has tremendous capacity. He’s also a technocrat and a mild reformer who is very much of and within the boundaries of the status quo. Ever the consummate banker, Carney seeks to nudge the free market towards the latest iteration of kinder, gentler, and still fit for purpose, no matter what the warming planet and immiserated have to say about it. He believes companies, for instance, should focus on stakeholders, not just shareholders and pursue enlightened values. It’s unclear whether Carney, as a politician, would mandate as much, how, and to what extent. One gets the sense he’d be an extension of the classic social liberal marketeer who believes that the market ought to do good things but would take a light hand at requiring as much.
It appears he won’t run in 2025, assuming that’s when the federal election comes to pass. If that is indeed true but he harbours electoral ambitions, which I bet he does, then he’s wise to sit out the upcoming goat rodeo. It’s going to be a mess and the Liberals could be reduced to a rump party. Would he then descend from the firmament to save the party and, naturally, by extension, all of us wretches? Is he built for that?
Comparisons to Michael Ignatieff, who led the Liberals from 2008 to 2011, are far from flattering but perhaps more than fair. Ignatieff has plenty of expertise and capacity, too. He was also a terrible politician incapable of meeting the moment. He led the Liberals to 34 seats in the 2011 election, paving the way for Justin Trudeau to replace him.
Whether we like it or not, electoral politics takes more than policy chops and expertise. Neither on their own are indicative of whether or not the substance of what a politician does is good or bad, welcome or unwelcome. Smart people can have terrible ideas. Good ideas can be ill-suited to the moment. Carney’s naive, sugar-coated liberal approach leads me to doubt his policy ideas would be a long-term fix for our biggest and growing problems, but I could be wrong. We’ll have to wait and see.
As a retail politician, it’s fair to expect he’d be closer to Ignatieff than to Trudeau. Whatever you think of the current prime minister, he’s often been a talented retail politician, even if his time has run short, like it did for Progressive Conservative prime minister Brian Mulroney in the 1990s, another example of a talent that was unbeatable until people got sick of what it wrought. Carney comes off as stolid and aloof, a man you’d want in the boardroom or poring over spreadsheets, but would be less inclined to rally around in a community centre or church basement, where so much is won and lost, built or destroyed in electoral politics.
Carney talks a big game on values, grounding his 2021 book Value(s): Building a Better World for All in, well, just that. But the book betrays a reality its author otherwise evades, which is that reconceiving the status quo and dressing it up with the latest buzzwords and corporate goodwill effort trends, but failing to understand, as I argued in a review of the book, that “not only does the structure of the market militate against the prescriptions he offers, it effectively prevents effective and lasting system change.”
More to the point, perhaps, Carney isn’t right for the time. Canada and the world faces growing populist fervour, anger, resentment, and distrust of globalism. The reactionary backlash that is increasingly common as Canadians struggle won’t be quelled by a technocrat with hopeful expectations for the free market and a 1990s-style optimism for free trade.
Now is not a moment for technocracy or tinkering from an insider. It’s a moment for a firebrand to emerge and usher in structural changes premised upon the idea that the systems and orthodoxies that helped usher us into our current conundrums — barely-fettered capitalism, maximised global free trade, mass de-industrialization — won’t get us out of them.
Comments
Well-written. And I appreciate the link to the author's Breach book review. I have a similar concern regarding Carney's tendencies and, having started into but dropped a reading of "Values", was looking for a substantive take on the tome.
If we must be subjected to technocratic rule, it had better not be of the same ilk that has led the world, for the last couple of generations, to the brink of global calamity.
'Value(s)' is a slog, relatively full of technical, theoretical and historical info on economics. But it does demonstrate a deep knowledge of how the world works. I would have appreciated a more accessible read and a plainly composed response to climate change, but know that climate science is most definitely not lost on Carney.
Calling Carney "naive" was not appropriate and makes Moscrop seem like just another run of the mill anti-capitalist. He's better than that. Calling for a charismatic firebrand is more like it, but I'd say the firey exterior must be motivated and informed by a Carneyesque intellect on the inside that actually understands how to change and harness market objectives toward a climate oriented set of actions.
If Carney supports subsidizing things like carbon capture, then dump him immediately from any political leadership or advisory role. I don't recall any reference by him to supporting bottomless pits like CCS. Direct funding of renewables and conservation in the context of a stronger economy that includes less carbon and strong social programs, is in my view what is needed. Carney isn't naive; he if anyone would instantly recognize that the phenomenal growth of renewables is already happening beyond Canada's borders to the point it is soon poised to erode demand for Canadian fossil fuels. And he if anyone would know that fossil fuels comprise only a single digit percentile of the Canadian economy, and that reshoring industry and tech (including renewables) back home offers orders of magnitude more productivity than the staus quo of raw resource extraction and shipping.
Theories are not facts, but theory is often the basis for policy that becomes reality, good or bad. Let's hope these rumblings in the Liberal Party do some genuine, long term good for the nation.
Here's a simple excercise. Take Carney's experience and extensive published ideas and compare them to Poilievre's. On the latter, only photo ops with loudmouth convoy occupiers comes to mind. I know who I would vote for, especially if the NDP remain weak and cannot offer a broad based national alternative with intelligent economic grounding.
Put another way, if Carney (or for that matter Anita Anand) remains on the sidelines, then I know who I would vote against. I much prefer voting for something than against something else.
Yep, voting ABC is a fairly reliable thing under our current system and leadership offerings in competitive ridings like mine. But without positive internal change in the LPC, even that may not prevent possibly two terms with a demolition brigade running the place, even when our allies are turning against right wing populism.
Thanks for your thoughts, Alex.
"... but know that climate science is most definitely not lost on Carney."
I don't think I'll return to "Values", if the slog continues and, ultimately, Carney believes that the polycrisis can be addressed without altering the foundations of our economic system.
I'd much rather spend the time considering other offerings, such as "The Value of a Whale: on the Illusions of Green Capitalism", written by another, younger, Canadian with a CV that also includes time spent in the UK.
I think it unlikely you have read this book but, assuming you haven't, I highly recommend its very robust Introduction as necessary reading to anyone with an interest in this domain. Might be available at your public library.
I am very doubtful short of a miracle can save the Liberal party at this stage. Though Carney might help sort out some economic issues, it is a little to late to be of any help. Even if Trudeau steps aside, there is no "Harris" in the wings for the Liberal party.
While I welcome the ascension of Kamala Harris, she had very little stature in her role as Vice-President until Biden went off the rails. Her ability to lead remains to be demonstrated and her rise is largely due to the contrast between her and Donald Trump, an unhinged sociopath. There may well be several "Harris-like" candidates in the liberal ranks who have not yet had a chance to shine in the presence of Justin Trudeau.