Mark Carney veers still further to the right

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney is still a very popular guy nearly two years after taking office (and that's not an easy task in fickle Canada). But the signs are that he has already lost his way.

He was voted in to power as a Liberal, and as someone who, it was hoped, could stand up to the depredations of Donald Trump. Since March 2025, he has governed as a conservative, taking the remaining wind out of the sails of an already-weak Conservative Party under Pierre Poilievre, and has gradually re-modelled the Liberal party around him. 

From abandoning carbon tax to expediting oil and gas pipelines, Carney has shown a Trumpian "drill, baby, drill" attitude to resource extraction. It didn't end there: he called for the wholesale privatization of airports, vastly increased spending on defence, tax cuts like the Productivity Mega Deduction and the Canada Growth Incentive, and cuts to spending on the civil service, all areas that used to be the province of conservative governments. Some have dubbed it the "Carney Doctrine".

More recently, though, a few measures suggest that he is willing to take his conservatism still further, perhaps further than even Poilievre might have done.

Exhibit No. 1: A line item hidden deep in the latest federal budget, allocates a millions of dollars to "exploring" the idea of lifting the moratorium on offshore oil and gas exploration in the western Arctic. Imposed by the Trudeau Liberal administration in 2016, the moratorium is stictly about environmentalism (constraining our carbon footprint and protecting the fragile Arctic ecosystem from development and potential oilspills), but Mr. Carney has left environmental responsibility long behind him in his rush toward development, particularly of the oil and gas sectors. Donald Trump did the same for the Arctic waters of Alaska. Are we now in the same boat as Trump? Carney says it's not about lifting the moratorium at all, but then why the need to explore it? He also says it's about "respecting the environment". Yeah, right!

Exhibit No. 2: Playing fast and loose with immigration and immigration statistics. (Now, where did he get that from, if not from Trump?) Soon after taking power, Carney slashed the official immigration targets. After all, he was elected on a platform of reigning in Justin Trudeau's admittedly out-of-control immigration policy. Now, though, he has announced that he plans to grant permanent residency to 200,000 temporary residents already in Canada, on a "one-off" basis, and that 200,000 (plus an additional 82,000 left over from a similar measure last year) is somehow not included in the allocation of 380,000 permanent residents already announced for 2026. So, we will end up with a total of about 680,000 this year, way more than the Trudeau administration ever dreamed of. Personally, I don't have a problem with this - we need more immigrants - but it is definitely evidence of Carney talking out of both sides of his mouth.

Has Carney lost the plot? That depends on what you think the plot is. The Carney Doctrine is all about "strategic autonomy".and "values-based realism" (with the values left conveniemtly vague). But it's also about re-setting expectations and, more recently, dressing up the wolf in sheep's clothing. As Iago said, so long ago, "Ha! I like not that!"

Swapping Stellantis for Rochel sounds like a win to me

It is finally official that Stellantis NV is selling its Branpton, Ontario, plant, althoigh rumours to that end have been rife for weeks. The Unifor union is apoplectic and complaining loudly about Stellantis' "betrayal".

But, hold on, the plant is being sold to Canadian armoured vehicle maker Rochel. That's a win, isn't it? There may be some principled workers who object to manufacturing vehicles that may be used in wars and other conflicts. But the vast, vast majority of them probably won't care who they are working for so long as they have a job. 

"More than 2,000 workers" have been laid off and idle at the plant since 2023. You'd think Unifor would be pleased that someone has stepped in to replace the feckless Stellantis. And the kicker? It's a Canadian company replacing a foreign company.

I did see one Unifor spokesperson complaining that, instead of 2,000 employees, Rochel would only be employing a few hundred, and that might be a valid issue (although still better a few hundred than zero). But Rochel CEO Roman Shimonov is upbeat about employment: "Our goal is to employ thousands of people, and we'll definitely give the first priority to Brampton people".

So, what's not to like?

Doug Ford digs himself a hole

Did Ontario Premier Doug Ford just write his epitaph?

Already hightly unpopular after a horrible ten years in power, Ford seems to think that he can just brush people off with throwaway comments, à la Trump. But Ford is no Trump, and even Trump can't get away with throwaways any more, try as he might.

Responding to student protests after Ford's callous tuition hikes and cancellation of OSAP grants, a clearly rattled Ford shot back, "These kids are so naïve. They should be ... thanking the government for just investing". He blathered on, digging himself still deeper, "They read the social media and half the people on social media [are] a bunch of looney tunes. They all run out like sheep. Give your heads a shake, kids." 

Well, I guess very few of those "kids", or the "half the people on social media" voted for him, or are ever likely to in the future, so maybe he doesn't mind pissing them off. But everyone else is watching too, and now it's all over both halves of social media. 

Ford has always been insensitive and hard-hearted, partly because he is so out of touch with the poor of his province, born as he was into a wealthy family. Now, he's just reminding people of that. Ford has got as far as he has by being self-consciously "folksy". But this is not folksy; this is tone-deaf and soulless.

As provincial NDP leader Marit Styles put it, "Give your head a shake, Doug".

The murky quagmire of Israeli politics

It feels like I've been writing about Benjamin Netanyahu forever, and none if it has been good. The guy is a criminal and a menace to society. And, although he would no doubt call me antisemitic if he were ever to read my comments (because that's what he always does to deflect any and all criticism), his religious and cultural beliefs have never been at issue. It's his politics I dislike.

Now, though, after Israel's recent general election, Bibi's crooked and racist rule looks like it is finallly grinding to a halt. The October 27th election actually ended in a stalemate, with neither Netanyahu's religious-nationalist coalition nor Gadi Eisenkot's opposition grouping achieving a majority vote, leaving neither man with a clear oath to.power.

Enter Israel's long-standing President, Isaac Herzog. The presidency, in Israel's Byzantine political system, is a largely ceremonial role, but one thing it is responsible for is the nomination of a new government after an election. And Herzog has chosen Eisenkot's bloc, even though it gained slightly fewer votes than Netanyahu's. This was largely on the back of endorsements from Israel's small Arab parties, which have supported Eisenkot (or, rather, opposed Netanyahu), even though he has publicly vowed not to join forces with these same Arab parties! Like I said, Byzantine.

So, who is this Eisenkot? 

Eisenkot is 66 years old and the son of Moroccan immigrants. (Some of Netanyahu's supporters branded him as a "Misrahi Moroccan" and a "monkey", during the election debates, which gives some of the flavour of the nastiness of Israeli politics.) He grew up in Tiberias and Eilat, far from the centre of political power in Jerusalem, a consummate outsider. He had a storied career in the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF), and worked his way up the hard way to become Israel's top general, and chief of staff to Netanyahu.

His 25-year old son was killed by an explosive device in northern Gaza in 2023 and he also lost two of his nephews in the conflict, and this seems to have galvanized his move into politics. He has vowed to "continue the mission" in Gaza, so don't expect much of a change on that front. But he has accused Netanyahu of endangering democracy, so maybe we can hope for some reform there.

The main point is that Eisenkot is not Netanyahu. But he is far from being the anti-Netanyahu. He is willing to start a commission of inquiry into the security failures of October 7th (which Netanyahu has long avoided), and he will ensure that ultra-Orthodox Jews will not be able to avoid mandatory national service. But he is almost as hawkish as Netanyahu when it comes to the operation in Gaza and his attitudes towards the great enemy Iran. He too rejects a two-state solution to the Palestine problem, although he has vowed to crack down on settler violence in the occupied West Bank.

Eisenkot now has 28 days (with a possible 14 day extension) to try to cobble together a functional government. But his options are stark: either join together with the Arab parties that have supported him (but which he has refused to conscion thus far), or hold his breath and negotiate with some of the smaller radical far-right ultra-Orthodox parties.

It is, then, far from a slam-dunk that Eisenkot will be able to make this work. And, waiting in the wings is the shadowy figure of Netanyahu, down and dogged by long-standing corruption charges, but still not out.

To compute or not to compute

In recently years, the word compute has gone through quite an evolution. Or maybe an augmentation.

It used to be just a verb, meaning to calculate, or to use a computer. It's been in use in English since at least the 14th century (computer has been in the English lexicon since the 17th century, but meaning a person who calculates, rarher than a machine or programmable device).

Nowadays, though, compute is more likely to be used as an adjective (or a "noun adjunct") to mean relating to processing power, hardware or even resources required to run programs. It is particularly used in relation to cloud infrastructure and artificial intelligence. Thus, "We need more compute power", "the amount of computer capacity", "compute time fell dramatically". It can even be used by tech types as a kind of group noun, as in "we need more compute". It fairly howls of tech bro.

I know it's a relatively new usage, and I'm not necessarily against the evolution of the language per se (except where that happens due to sloppiness and errors, like the new meanings of momentarily, fulsome, etc). Somehow, though, it still sounds awkward and ostentatious. In most cases, existing words like computing and computer would work just as well; there is just no need to invent a new connotation of an existing word.

But then, inventing is what tech bros do, I guess. I kind of just wish they would stay in their own lane.

An all-Canadian electric concept car

I've often wondered why Canada doesn't have its own home-grown auto industry, and more specifically its own EV industry. If countries like Korea, India, Sweden, France, even Czechia, have their own vehicle design, manufacture and assembly industries, you'd think we could too, right?

After all, we've been beavering [sic] away building cars and trucks here for American, Japanese, Korean and European cars for decades, so we have the labour force and the expertise, and even quite a sizeable market. So, why no Saab, no Kia, no Skoda? No Tesla, no Togg (a homegrown EV designed and manufactured in Türkiye, of all places)?

Well, it turns out we kind of do (but only kind of). Project Arrow - named after the ill-fated Avro Arrow fighter jet, designed and built in Canada in the 1950s, and abandoned and destroyed in controversial circumstances - promises to be the first ever Canadian-made concept electric vehicle. And a good-looking beast it is too. 

With an innovative drive train, a 3D-printed chassis and a state-of-the-art navigation system, it caught many eyes when it was displayed at Canada's Pavillion at the COP28 climate conference in Dubai a couple of years ago. In 2026, it showcased its Vector and Borealis models at the Canadian International Auto Show in Toronto. The Vector is a sporty 650-horsepower crossover with a 550 km range. The Borealis is a driverless shuttle with a range of up to 1,500 km.

Project Arrow was initially launched in 2020 and spearheaded by Canada's Automative Parts Manufacturers Association (APMA), under the leadership of Flavio Volpe, using $12 million raised from the Canadian auto sector and $8 from all three levels of government. (Just for context, US EV maker Rivian had raised about US450 million in equity and debt by the time it brought its first vehicle to market 8 years ago.) Its original goal was not to launch a commercial vehicle, but to demonstrate the strength of Canada's EV supply chain to the world. As Mr. Volpe says, "With Project Arrow, Canada shows it has the technology and the people to do an 'all- Canadian' car". APMA originally figured it could have a compact SUV model Arrow available for a very reasonable $35,000 by 2029. 

In recent months, though, the industrial landscape has changed out of all recognition in Canada, specifically with the US's u-turn away from EVs under Donald Trump and the trade war that followed. Now, the Canadian auto sector is wondering whether it can survive at all. To a large extent, Canada is subject to the whims of the American auto industry and of Trump himself. There has been a pull-back from electric vehicles, mainly due to American influence, and several EV and battery projects in Canada have been shelved in favour of ICE vehicle production. 

Some industry insiders now believe that the only future for Canadian-built EVs is for military vehicles, and that is indeed the focus of Arrow 3.0. For one thing, it lines up with Canada's new increased NATO spending commitment of 5% of GDP, so there could well be development money available. But also EVs have untapped potential in the military sphere: they are quiet and harder to detect in stealth operations, can cut down on vulnerable fuel-resupply challenges, and they are able to power the various on-board sensors and electronics that are increasingly part of modern military defence. (Most of this is taken from an article by Stephen Baldwin for the Corporate Knight's magazine that does not seem to be available online.)

It seems ironic - or perhaps fitting, depending on how you look at it - that the Arrow car should go the same way as the original Avro Arrow plane. But maybe that's just the way the winds are blowing these days. Let's hope it's not dogged by the same kind of controversy as the Avro Arrow.

Some big losers in the US mid-terms (and just generally)

Elon Musk donated to Republican Party midterm candidates an estimated $474 million. Given what transpired yesterday, you have to feel a bit sorry for him. 

Hold on, scratch that. You don't have to feel at all sorry. He deserves everything he got, and everything he might still get in the future as a result of the Blue Tsumani that hit Trump-weary USA. And especially the Blue Wave in Texas, where Musk moved most of his operations because he didn't like paying taxes. Musk's stock holdings in Tesla and Spacex are now worth significantly less than they were, as both companies' share prices took a dive immediately after the midterm results.

Someone else we shouldn't feel sorry for? Haley Stevens, who lost the Michigan Democratic Party primary to Abdul El-Sayed, and promptly endorsed the Republican candidate, Mike Rogers. It seems she is more pro-Israel than she is pro-Michigan, certainly more than she is pro-Democrat. Mr. El-Sayed won Michigan for the Democrats anyway, and Ms. Stevens' reputation and career is in tatters (unless she moves to Israel). God, these people!

And another loser? Donald J. Trump.

The case for an apology and reparations for slavery

It's a tricky one. King Charles III of Britain has been trying to thread the needle at the Commonwealth meeting in the Caribbean over the issue of historical slavery. In his usual, and I think perfectly genuine, heartfelt manner, the king acknowledged "the great suffering and injustices in the past in these islands and beyond". He was careful to qualify it with, "We cannot change the actions of those who came before us", and certainly fell short of an official apology or any talk of financial reparations.

Many of the Commonwealth Caribbean nations feel this was a missed opportunity, and see it as a slight to them. They have long called for an apology and reparations. As one member put it: "Acknowledgement is like when somebody hits your car and says, 'Oh, I'm sorry!' But the apology when they hit your car and say, 'I'm sorry and here is my insurance'. It's the difference between recognizing that something bad has happened, and holding yourself accountable for it".

Fair enough, I guess. But should today's nations be held accountable for the sins of the past? Do a few words of official apology outweigh years of acknowledgements of past transgressions? Are they really more interested in the filthy lucre of reparations than the moral imperative of an apology? Lots of open questions. 

Britain was not alone in its pursuit of the lucrative slave trade. France, Portugal, Spain, Netherlands, Denmark and the United states. For what it's worth, Britain was actually the first of those countries to outlaw the slave trade, in 1807, and its early changes galvanized the other counrties into action. Thus far, the Netherlands is the only country to have apologized and no country has agreent to pay reparations.

Recently, new British Prime Minister Andy Burnham - not a man you could accuse of having a weak moral compass, I'd argue - came out publicly on the issue. He says he may be open to making an apology, but definitively ruled out reparations, arguing that they were not the right answer". In his words, "I do not think that British people today can be held liable for historical wrongs, however heinous, that happened in a different age under different laws and in which they played no personal part".

This seems to be the view across the political spectrum in Britain and abroad, and other is a compelling, almost irrefutable, argument. Making a formal apology, on the other hand, costs nothing and can be done with conviction and sensitivity. So, it should definitely be done, in my view.