On Sunday, the Liberal Party of Canada announced the results of its leadership election, and they couldn't be clearer. Mark Carney, economist and former advisor to Trudeau swept all opposition to his leadership bid aside with ease, elected in the first round with 86.8% of the vote.
Within the week, Carney will become the first Liberal prime minister from Western Canada, and the first to never have previously held elected office. Because of this, and his surging popularity, he is expected to call an election very shortly, in a move that would deny the minor left-wing parties the satisfaction and the optics of triggering an election by a no-confidence vote in the government, which would almost certainly pass if it were held.
Carney will bring a calm competency to the role, having headed the Bank of Canada during the 2008 Global Economic Crisis, and the Bank of England during Brexit and the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic. Having graduated Harvard with a BA in economics, he underwent his post-graduate study Oxford, culminating in a DPhil (Oxford's special name for a PhD). His policy platform prioritises growth and infrastructure and stronger measures to tackle climate change, having been appointed by the UN as a Special Envoy for Climate Action and Finance. It also includes commitment to the NATO defence spending target of 2% of GDP; the introduction of a cap on migration to Canada until it subsides to pre-pandemic levels; and dollar-for-dollar retaliation to Trump's tariffs. It is especially that which has seen him surge to the party leadership, having emerged early on in the race as a strong and patriotic voice against the US's economic and rhetorical aggression, proposing tariffs on US produce "until the Americans show us respect.”
But he will need to carry this wave of popularity into the wider Canadian public if he is to last as prime minister. Trump's policies will increase economic hardship in Canada, while it fights these and the existential threats the US has taken to posing to it. Having headed Trudeau's Task Force on Economic Growth, he will claim a stronger grasp of both the hardships facing Canadians and the steps that should be taken to fix them than pro-big-business Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre, who he has denounced as a "career politician." The Liberals will also try and capitalise on the growing anti-American sentiment gripping Canada and highlight Poilievre's endorsement by Musk.
On the other hand, the Conservatives will emphasise Carney's role as vice chairman at an investment firm which relocated from Toronto to New York during his tenure, a move far more significant than it might have been a few months ago. Their once certain prospect of a majority government (and a strong one) looks less and less likely as the Liberals' polling surges. 338 Canada, a poll aggregator and election predictor, now puts the chances of a Conservative majority, a Conservative plurality, and a Liberal plurality at equal thirds, a far cry from the predictions of the past twelve months, which had previously put a Conservative majority at a 98% chance or better until just over a month ago.
In the end, support for the other three candidates in the race failed to materialise. Chrystia Freeland, former deputy prime minister, whose resignation was the nail in the coffin for Trudeau's premiership came in second with 7.3% of the votes, followed by former House Leader Karina Gould, and not-even current MP Frank Baylis. (It is worth noting though, that this was by no means only the pretence of an election - Carney's election was no done-deal from the start.) Only Freeland, known as Trudeau's "Minister for Everything", was thought to pose a threat to Carney, and she will remain a prominent member of the party. Having voiced her hope that if she became prime minister, Carney would fill the role of finance minister, she (and Gould for that matter) could well find herself around Carney's cabinet table, if she plays her cards right.
After all, a united party is what the Liberals need to be if they are to beat the Conservatives. Because of the Canadian electoral system, which works in the same way as the UK's, seats are not representative of vote-share, and the Liberal-Conservative seat distribution could well come down to the third-party vote, even if the third-party seat counts remain relatively unchanged. Canada has three and a half minor parties, the (centre-)left New Democratic Party, the very SNP-like centre-left Quebec nationalist Bloc Québécois, the Greens, and the (far-)right populist People's Party. Currently unrepresented in Canada's Commons, the right-ward anti-immigrant drift of the Conservative party will likely see the PP remain that way.
If Carney can harness a positive message (at least towards those North of the border), he will efficiently contrast both the Conservatives and the minor left-wing parties. And that could well be the key. Liberals may have been divided over Trudeau, but they couldn't have been clearer on Carney.

This week, Trump continued his ravaging of the dignity of the American government and his country at large. By (illegally) impounding all outgoing money to Ukraine, in a shocking blow to Ukraine’s war effort, he left Europe reeling. It will focus the mind of European leaders then, that for the foreseeable future, only they will be funding Ukraine’s campaign against Russia’s indiscriminate warfighting. It should be utterly disqualifying for the American president, and it is utterly reprehensible and sad that Russia launched one of its largest bombardments of Ukraine by missile and drone, not long after the US suspended all intelligence-sharing with the country. Russia is reported to have made significant advancements in the north-eastern Sumy region and in Kursk, the Russian territory taken by Ukraine last year. Logistics there are said to be “rapidly deteriorating and already critical”, as North Korean troops make gains. Ukraine’s troops there are at risk of being encircled. Trump described Putin as “doing what anyone would do” after the US’s intelligence embargo.
Perhaps someone in his administration suggested Putin might not actually want peace. Who’d have thought! So, on Friday, Trump threatened Russia with sanctions until a peace deal is reached, on his usual forum, Truth Social (which he owns). Don’t hold your breath for anything significantly punitive. Performative maybe. That’s Trump’s style.
Despite his conciliatory open letters, Zelenskyy is not yet back at Trump’s negotiating table. It seems that his place has gone to former Ukrainian president Petro Poroshenko, whom Zelenskyy defeated with 75% of the vote in a one-on-one face off in the second round of Ukraine’s 2019 presidential election. He and other opposition leaders held talks with members of Trump’s staff this week, though they deny they are trying to oust Zelenskyy and have publicly disavowed wartime elections. Sure. The four “senior” Trump allies with whom they spoke didn’t believe Zelenskyy would be re-elected, were he to face an election, Politico reported. Trump is known to surround himself with geniuses of course. Zelenskyy is by far the most popular politician in Ukraine and would also be able to count on votes from Ukrainians unhappy with the dangerous prospect of an election. Even then, it's just not going to happen. The Ukrainian constitution forbids wartime elections and Russia would bomb polling stations and Ukrainians would die. Were a US coup successful, they might not even get what they bargained for. Referring to the Ukrainian ambassador to the UK, former Economy Minister Tymofiy Mylovanov had this to say: “If the US wants a different president in Ukraine, they should be meeting with General Zaluzhnyi. But I have a feeling Zaluzhnyi would be even tougher for them to negotiate with than Zelenskyy.”
Will private pushback from Republican politicians and public pushback from voters continue to direct Trump back towards Ukraine support? Even a majority of Americans support Ukraine, and they voted for Trump. Perhaps Zelenskyy’s removal is all Trump wants. His first impeachment began when whistleblowers made public Trump’s failed efforts to extort Zelenskyy, by illegally impounding congressionally approved aid to Ukraine, releasing it only on the condition that Zelenskyy investigate Biden and his son on baseless corruption allegations and legitimise various conspiracy theories relating to the 2016 Russian interference in the US presidential election. But Trump is unlikely to get what he wants. And though it’s not like Trump to forget a grudge, he does really want that Nobel Peace Prize.

On Wednesday, Starmer faced probably the easiest PMQs of his premiership so far. Welcome relief from the stressful diplomacy of the past week, I’d say. Badenoch asked him five soft-ball questions on Ukraine and a sixth more interesting one which he ignored. It was announced earlier that day that Washington had stopped sharing intelligence with Ukraine and had instructed the UK to deny Ukraine any US-generated intelligence in turn; Badenoch asked whether we were still providing Ukraine intelligence. Of course, the US and the UK alike would do better to focus on making sure Kremlin-mouthpiece Tulsi Gabbard, US Director of National Intelligence, doesn’t find out anything too sensitive.
Badenoch continues to struggle to walk the impossible and non-sensical line between Ukraine support, with which the overwhelming majority of Britons agree, and support for Trump and Vance. This week a YouGov poll suggests Trump is now viewed unfavourably even by Reform voters (-8) in a 40-point swing since the last poll two weeks ago and that he boasts an abysmal support of -65 among UK voters in general. In the same time, Starmer’s approval has risen from -40 to -28, and Zelenskyy’s from +48 to +57. The Conservative leader clearly agrees with Starmer’s approach for the most part, offering little chance for opposition this past week, so she picked a Twitter-battle to fight instead, tweeting in support of Vance.
Earlier this week, Vance dismissed the idea of a European defence force in Ukraine as “20,000 troops from some random country that hasn’t fought a war in 30 or 40 years”. The most prominent proponents of this idea are of course the UK and France, both of which fought side-by-side with Americans in Afghanistan and Iraq, dutifully. Indeed, NATO’s article 5, which treats an attack on a NATO country as an attack on all NATO, has been triggered exactly once, on the 12th of September 2001. Now the US, as per Trump this week, can’t even be trusted to honour the treaty of which she is signatory. Starmer deftly but firmly rebuked Vance in the Commons on Wednesday when he remembered and praised the bravery of the “642 individuals [who] died fighting for Britain alongside our allies”.
Meanwhile, Badenoch defended Vance on Twitter, claiming she believed him that he wasn’t talking about the UK or France, while the Conservative Chief Whip advised Conservative MPs that not all views needed to be aired on Twitter, after an MP’s criticism of Vance earlier in the day. Ed Davey, leader of the Liberal Democrats, was quick to ridicule Badenoch in response. Without the burden of government or official opposition, beholden to Trump and his cronies by neither the diplomatic sensitivities of government (Labour) or tacit support (Conservatives and Reform), he probably has one of the easiest jobs in British politics at the moment.
Starmer will be hoping to capitalise in the coming weeks on general cross-party consensuses by seizing Russian assets to fund Ukraine’s war effort, rather than just freezing them and relying on generated interest. Both the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives have voiced their support for such a move, Sunak writing in the Telegraph in favour. It’s not like respect for national sovereignty is Russia’s prerogative anyway. Macron has been the most reticent key-player, though an insider on talks between Germany and France suggested progress is being made, especially in terms of using the assets to back up loans to Ukraine, which Russia would pay back by relinquishing these assets. And we’re not talking small change, but €200 bn. With the US closed for business, it certainly looks like a promising proposal.

On Tuesday, Trump broke the record for the longest address to Congress. Clocking in at just over one hundred minutes, Trump spent his address rambling and boasting, threatening and lying.
He rambled Musk’s praises, detailing waste saved by DOGE’s gutting of federal agencies, (and especially those in charge of oversight) (and especially those in charge of oversight of Musk-owned companies), he repeated his baseless assertion that the billionaire and his team of teenagers have found hundreds of billions of dollars of fraud in federal government spending. And he too rambled his admiration for his own economic policy. On Tuesday (illegal) tariffs of 25% went into effect on nearly all Canadian and Mexican imports, in a move that could have triggered a larger trade war between the nations had they lasted more than two days. On Thursday he capitulated and delayed all levies on all USMCA (North American trade agreement) covered products, which account for about half of US trade with these countries. Notably, Ontario Premier Doug Ford, re-elected just last week, in a move mirrored across Canada has chosen to retain all tariffs implemented against US goods on Tuesday in response to Trump’s tariffs, until the Trump-induced uncertainty subsides. Trump probably saw the stock-market drop and panicked. Surely his administration knows tariffs are not going to solve their problems and will only exacerbate them for much of America, especially the deep red rural farming voter-base. Perhaps there’s some master plan. Perhaps there isn’t. Trump will still claim victory.
He also ensured everyone knew he had won the 2024 election. Perhaps buoyed by his first ever popular-vote win, by an astounding margin, which ranks 50th in 60 elections, he lauded his mandate. Perhaps the only really interesting moment of the night occurred when Al Green, Texas Democrat and representative of 20 years, unsatisfied by his party’s otherwise passive resistance (like bringing as guests fired federal workers or constituents who rely on Medicaid), stood and shouted, “Mr President, you don’t have a mandate,” and was quickly escorted from the chamber. Perhaps AOC, who refused to attend and instead watched it live, posting her responses on Bluesky, should have turned up just to do the same – many Democrat voters have been asking for exactly this sort of public demonstration, so Green’s small resistance, while largely undefended by other Democrats, was welcome intervention to left-leaning commentators online. And he has been fundraising off the back of it. Trump also boasted his 2700 county wins to Harris’ 525. Note Trump’s tally includes Loving County, Texas (pop. 64) and Harris’, Los Angeles County, California (pop. 9,663,345).
He continued to threaten Denmark, claiming the US would have Greenland “one way or the other,” and similarly threatened Panama’s control of their canal. Notably though, despite (illegally) impounding all funding to Ukraine, his tone towards Zelenskyy was softened somewhat on Tuesday following a letter from the Ukrainian, in which he thanked the US for its support and committed to take part in US-led peace talks. Though, see above for how that turned out.
And he lied, and he lied, and he lied. It’s hardly worth detailing the lies though the most ridiculous is that the government spent $8 million funding studies into “turning mice transgender”. He also again stated that Musk heads DOGE which isn’t a lie, but isn’t the official position, as such a predicament might just happen to be… illegal. After all, Musk doesn’t want to have to face scrutiny! Or disclose his finances. And it's just the first month!
“In fact, it has been stated by many that the first month of our presidency—it’s our presidency—is the most successful in the history of our nation. By many. And what makes it even more impressive is that do you know who No. 2 is? George Washington. How about that? How about that?”

On Monday, after almost half a year of negotiations, Austrian president, Alexander Van der Bellen, appointed the new and broad coalition Stocker government.
In September, Austrians went to the polls and recorded a result not dissimilar to the German election of two weeks ago. The far-right populist Freedom Party (FPÖ) came in first with 28.8% of the vote and 57 seats, the centre-right People's Party (ÖVP) in second with 26.3% and 51 seats, followed by the centre-left Social Democrats (SPÖ) with 21.1% in their worst ever result (they got 21.2% in 2019) and 41 seats, the liberal NEOS with 9.1% and 18 seats, and the progressive Greens with 8.2% and 16 seats. Like in Germany, representation in parliament is contingent on reaching a threshold of the national vote, 4% in the case of the Nationalrat, and no party got particularly close.
Van der Bellen broke with convention in denying the winning FPÖ a mandate to form a government, citing a desire for a government which respects the "foundations of our liberal democracy". Besides, no party had expressed a willingness to form a coalition with the populists. But after ÖVP-SPÖ-NEOS coalition talks failed, the ÖVP leader and outgoing chancellor resigned and was replaced with Christian Stocker, who joined in talks with the FPÖ, which Van der Bellen had invited to form a government.
But those talks failed too. Both the FPÖ and the ÖVP insisted on the chancellery, the interior ministry, and the finance ministry, and in the end, cooperation in goverment seemed unmanageable. The ÖVP insisted that the FPÖ's leader Herbert Kickl be denied a cabinet position. So, without movement on such a position, the talks were doomed from the start. Kickl who styles himself 'Volkskanzler' (no reference to Hitler he insists), believes the law should follow politics, and made a name for himself speaking at far-right conventions attended by Austrian neo-nazi group, campaigned on a platform of 'remigration' - dog-whistle for the deportation of immigrants and their descendants - in the view to a 'homogeneous' Austria. His time as a minister in the 2017 government was mired with controversy, not least when he ordered raids on the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution and Counterterrorism in order to seize data relating to far-right extremist groups linked to his party, or when he alluded to detainment camps for asylum seekers, or suggested their preemptive arrest.
So it will be met with relief by moderate Austrian voters the formation of an ÖVP-SPÖ-NEOS coalition government, who successfully revived talks under Stocker. With a majority of 37 in a chamber of 183, they will enjoy stable government while they all agree. As chancellor, Stocker has committed so sensible fiscal policy while conceding some ground to his coalition partners on welfare spending, and to pro-European policy-making, which must look more appealing to Austrian voters in light of the events of late. SPÖ leader, Andreas Babler, is appointed Vice-Chancellor and Culture Minister, while Beate Meisl-Reisinger, NEOS leader, will head the Foreign Ministry. As Van der Bellen remarked on Monday, "Good things come to those who wait."

This week, the Israel-Hamas ceasefire has looked less and less likely to hold, as Israel blocks aid, and Hamas makes clear that disarming is a line they will not cross.
Phase two of the ceasefire, which was meant to have already begun, was aimed at providing for a permanent ceasefire and the release of all hostages. But negotiations are hardly even underway. Hamas have refused to accept a US proposed extension to the first phase, while provoking Israeli anger and global condemnation for their parading of released hostages through Gaza. Israel meanwhile attempt to blackmail Hamas by blocking all humanitarian relief from entering Gaza, in breach of the ceasefire deal already agreed upon and international law.
And on the American side of things, while support for Ukraine dwindles, the Israel lobby only strengthens as Trump weighed in on the conflict on Truth Social, threatening Hamas (and the people of Gaza in general), with “HELL TO PAY LATER!” if Hamas do not release all remaining hostages. His comments are said to have emboldened the most extreme factions of the Israeli government, encouraging them to block negotiations with the view to their goal of destroying Hamas. Indeed, Netanyahu, under pressure from this side of his coalition, will not withdraw from the Egypt-Gaza border as agreed to in ceasefire negotiations. He faces significant challenges in the weeks ahead as public resentment towards his government grows over their apparent deprioritisation of hostage release, which increased this week as the father of a hostage still held in Gaza accused Netanyahu of breaking the deal in order to stay in power. Indeed, he may be, as a permanent ceasefire would not please the far-right members of his coalition and would threaten to collapse his government and trigger elections.
Meanwhile, Egypt has proposed its own plan for rebuilding Gaza, absent the ethnic cleansing of Trump’s alternative. The three-stage plan would see Gaza, almost completely destroyed by Israeli bombardment, reconstructed over five years, under the control of a government of non-partisan experts, in the hope of eventual government by the Palestinian Authority, which heads the West Bank. The $53 bn plan has been praised by Arab and European leaders including David Lammy, the Foreign Secretary, as “realistic”, while the US and Israel oppose it, and it has been criticised for not properly addressing how Hamas would be made to agree with their removal from power in Gaza or by whom it would be funded.
Forget not the Gazans who, awaiting news of ceasefire, have been met only with renewed airstrikes, threat of famine, and on Sunday, news that Israel would cut the electricity supply of to the last Gazan plant still supplied by Israel, and the hostages, of which twenty-five are thought to remain alive in Gaza, and whose release seems less and less certain.

On Thursday, Reform MP Rupert Lowe sat down to an interview and criticised his party leader. On Friday, he was suspended as an MP for two allegations of workplace bullying, targeting of two women who raised concerns, and misogynistic and ableist comments, and reported to the police for two threats of physical violence against the party chair, Zia Yusuf.
In an interview with the Daily Mail, Lowe questioned Farage’s ability to change the party from a “protest party led by the Messiah”, said he would leave the party if things didn’t change, and expressed uncertainty as to whether Farage would make a good prime minister. All sensible reasonable things of course, but unacceptable to the unity of the party and limited company. (The rest of his interview was far more standard for the multi-millionaire Reform MP, suggesting the parliamentary salary be increased to a quarter of a million pounds, the size of parliament halved, and that the BBC was a cancer.)
Luckily for Farage, he had an ace up his sleeve. The day after the interview, these allegations came to light, and Rupert Lowe now sits as an independent MP pending an independent investigation. So much for those prime ministerial ambitions Farage alleges Lowe holds. Lowe denies all the allegations of course and accuses the party of a witch hunt against him for his criticism of party structures and push for internal change. “Is it a surprise that these allegations were made public the day after I made reasonable criticisms of Nigel Farage and the Reform leadership?” he asks.
In the statement released on Friday, the party chair and the Chief Whip outline the allegations against Lowe and note frequent outbursts and use of inappropriate language. Later, Farage even went on to quote Mike Kane, a Labour minister (I know!), who said this last year after getting into an altercation with Lowe following a debate in parliament: “The anger displayed towards me clearly showed a man not in charge of his own faculties.” There certainly seems to be significant evidence of this alleged “disturbing pattern of behaviour”.
Reform’s parliamentary strength is reduced to just 4 MPs and Lee Anderson’s job as school councillor, I mean, Chief Whip gets 100% easier. It will be interesting to see whether Lowe can weasel his way back into the party fold. Farage knows, as the Conservatives discovered in June, that party disunity is a major turn-off for voters. Lowe, who makes clear he still very much supports the party, might just find reconciliation on the cards once this is all forgotten. Not that such allegations should be, but alas, they will. It’s not like one of his fellow Reform MPs, James McMurdock, wasn’t convicted for assaulting, repeatedly kicking, his girlfriend.
On the other hand, like in Trumpland, criticising the dear and glorious leader is a cardinal sin. Perhaps Lowe, emboldened by Musk’s support, thought he had some leeway. Clearly, he did not.