Mark Carney’s honeymoon is ending – just not in the way most people expected
Prime Minister Mark Carney's initial popularity remains strong a year after taking office, defying expectations of a post-honeymoon slump. His government has transitioned from campaign promises to implementing major economic and infrastructure initiatives. The real test now lies in delivering tangible results amid economic pressures and structural challenges.
- ▪Mark Carney's government has maintained high public approval one year after the election, despite economic strains from tariffs and high living costs.
- ▪New agencies such as Build Canada Homes, the Defence Investment Agency, and a sovereign wealth fund have been launched to address national priorities.
- ▪Carney’s economic agenda mirrors past efforts under Jean Chrétien, requiring long-term execution on debt, trade, and infrastructure challenges.
- ▪The government now faces the practical work of delivering outcomes, moving beyond promises to measurable impact.
- ▪Carney’s technocratic image contrasts with Chrétien’s familiarity-based trust, but both faced urgent economic turning points.
Opening excerpt (first ~120 words) tap to expand
Open this photo in gallery:Prime Minister Mark Carney in his office in Ottawa on Friday.Spencer Colby/The Canadian PressShareSave for laterPlease log in to bookmark this story.Log InCreate Free AccountThere were several rounds of chatter over the summer and into the fall about whether the honeymoon was over for Prime Minister Mark Carney – and if not yet, when that moment would come. Elbows sagged; President Donald Trump went on blowing up like a puffer fish; tariffs were carving up certain sectors of the economy and regions of the country; CUSMA hadn’t been rescued; the only shovels in the ground on major projects would have been digging anyway; groceries, gas and mortgage payments were still gouging.And when would we get to those sweet nothings about how we could give ourselves more…
Excerpt limited to ~120 words for fair-use compliance. The full article is at The Globe and Mail.
Discussion
0 commentsMore from The Globe and Mail
