3 Despite his frenetic activity, Carney doesn’t actually have a comprehensive, whole-of-economy industrial policy. Such a policy would make the hard calls on steel, autos, etc. 3a What he has are old, FDI, low taxes, no regulation, private-sector-driven 90s-era policies. But it’s the 2020s.

tl;dr: Carney’s 90s-era economic strategy is designed to spur private sector investment. But Canada‘s problem is that the US is attacking the foundations of the economy. What’s needed is actual industrial policy outlining what the economy should look like in 30 years with a state-led plan to match.

At a systemic level also a good illustration of Alasdair Roberts' (2024) argument that Canada may be performing well in crisis management and maintaining resilience (restoration of status quo in light of crisis), but less so when it comes to its ability to adapt.

It remains amazing to me that nationalization -- which would've been mocked mercilessly when I started my professional career in 1999 -- is now treated as a legitimate policy option in Ottawa. It might not happen, but that it's even being taken seriously shows how much things have changed.

Low voter turnout as a realistic scenario in such an existential referendum in itself signals that the social foundations of Canadian democracy may not be sufficiently robust. I don't have the impression political leadership has recognized this yet.

What is the PM's understanding of federalism to begin with?

Carney likely has even less knowledge of Quebec than Harper had. He’s popular now in the province. Will be interesting to see if that holds with a PQ government constantly criticizing him.

It's possible to compare apples and oranges, which is why I am planning to connect - despite all differences - some dots between the Sachsen-Anhalt election in Germany and the Alberta referendum in a panel discussion next week.

Yes, he seems to be doing “lüften” while attending the G7 summit.