Guest post by Adrian Beaumont, who joins us from time to time to provide commentary on elections internationally. Adrian is a paid election analyst for The Conversation. His work for The Conversation can be found here.
On March 9, Mark Carney, former governor of the Bank of Canada and Bank of England, was elected Liberal leader with 86% of points and 87% of the popular vote. On March 14, Carney replaced Justin Trudeau as Canadian PM. On Sunday (Canadian time), Carney called the Canadian federal election for April 28, about six months early.
Parliament had been due to resume on Monday after it was prorogued for the Liberal leadership election. The governing centre-left Liberals won 160 of the then 338 seats at the September 2021 election, ten short of a majority, and have been reduced to 152 through by-election losses and defections. Carney is not an MP, so he could not address parliament (he will contest Nepean at the election). Perhaps owing to these difficulties, Carney called the election early.
There will be 343 seats elected by first past the post at this election, up from 338 in 2021, so 172 seats will be needed for a majority. The CBC Poll Tracker was updated Sunday, and it gives the Liberals 37.5%, the Conservatives 37.1%, the left-wing New Democratic Party (NDP) 11.6%, the separatist left-wing Quebec Bloc (BQ) 6.4% (28.4% in Quebec), the Greens 3.8% and the far-right People’s 2.2%. Seat predictions are 174 Liberals, just over a majority, 134 Conservatives, 26 BQ, seven NDP and two Greens.
In early January, just before Trudeau announced he would resign once a new Liberal leader had been elected, vote shares in the Tracker were 44% Conservative, 20% Liberal and 19% NDP. At this point, the Conservatives looked headed for a massive landslide with well over 200 seats, while the Liberals could have fallen into third behind the BQ.
Donald Trump is probably most responsible for the Liberal revival, with his tariffs and his talk of making Canada the 51st US state pushing Canadians back to supporting the Liberals. Trump is expected to impose more tariffs on April 2, possibly assisting the Liberals further. I believe Trump’s tariffs and associated stock market falls have also helped Labor in Australia.
However, I don’t believe in momentum in elections: just because one party is gaining ground in the polls doesn’t mean that party will continue to gain ground. The massive surge for the Liberals could reverse during the election campaign, perhaps as voters refocus on stuff they don’t like about the Liberals after nearly ten years of Liberal government since Trudeau was first elected in October 2015.
US and Portugal
In Nate Silver’s aggregate of US national polls, Trump has a net approval of -2.1 (49.6% disapprove, 47.5% approve). His net approval turned negative on March 11. Trump has fallen from +12 net approval at the start of his term.
A Portuguese parliamentary election will be held on May 18, only 14 months after the March 2024 election. The early election came after the conservative AD, which governed in minority with support from the far-right Chega, lost a confidence vote. Polls indicate another AD-led minority government is likely. Portugal uses proportional representation by region to elect its 230 MPs.
Carney’s not charismatic but having been a bean counter is probably what Canada needs in light of the chaos south of the border.
I think Carney is fairly charismatic in a calm and astute sort of way. He certainly seems like the pair of steady hands Canada needs at this time.
The election will be decided in the suburbs of Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal.
The prairie states are just about a wipeout for the Liberals so they need the large metropolitan areas and the maritime provinces to hold fast. Trump threating more 51st state and higher tariffs rhetoric wouldn’t go astray as well.
Mavis says:
Monday, March 24, 2025 at 2:54 pm
Carney’s not charismatic but having been a bean counter is probably what Canada needs in light of the chaos south of the border.
————————————————-
As mj confirms, Carney has a quiet charm and quick wit which is obvious in this encounter with Jon Stewart on the Daily Show back in January.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zs8St-fF0kE
Wild how invariably across the Anglosphere governments that have left working class people worse off while bending over backwards to look after the well off/landlords are called “centre left” by people who are paid far too much money to sit at a computer all day.
Seeing the media redefine centre left as centre right does go someway into showing how people in the past arrived at the conclusion there’s no difference between the intelligentsia and the bourgeoisie.
All Canadian elections are generally decided in the suburbs of Toronto.
To some degree it depends on how Quebec goes. If the Liberals win seats in Quebec, it makes harder on the conservatives. When the bloc wins a lot seats, the Liberals need to more elsewhere.
Also last time, the Liberals got a lower overall vote than the Conservatives – they were just more efficient with where they got their votes – winning more seats.
338 Canada does some modelling on what is required. They however need a new name as there are now more seats.
https://338canada.com/federal.htm
beguiledagain:
Monday, March 24, 2025 at 4:03 pm
Mavis says:
Monday, March 24, 2025 at 2:54 pm
Carney’s not charismatic but having been a bean counter is probably what Canada needs in light of the chaos south of the border.
————————————————-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zs8St-fF0kE'%5D
Thanks for the link but I’m referring to Weberian charismatic authority:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/computer-science/charismatic-authority
Carney looks like achieving a big uplift in seats in Quebec (out of 78 seats, the 2nd most populous state), a wipeout across Atlantic Canada and maintaining status quo in Ontario, the most populous state by far.
If polls hold, Liberals will also do well in the cities of Winnipeg, Edmonton, Calgary (more mixed) and most urban centres of BC (they won’t sweep Vancouver but will win seats across the province), in spite of being generally weaker West of Ontario. Though BC is always a fairly high swing state where any of the 3 biggest parties can do well.
Conservatives may also get a minor uptick in seats in Quebec but nothing to speak of that would compensate for losses elsewhere.
With national issues / security at stake, it appears there is a coalescing around the big two parties, with NDP having lost nearly as many % in the realignment of the last 2 months as Conservatives, with the BQ (Quebec Nationalists) also being big losers and the Greens (who only have 3 seats anyway) also losing a bit of share as Liberals suck in votes from everywhere.
Conservatives have a fairly rock solid base support in favour of Poilievre who will keep them ahead in a similar number of seats to what they have currently, they are probably more reliable votes than they’ve been for a good many years.
However, with Trump being the defining issue the election will be won by who wins the debate on being the best leader for right now- which probably means simply which of Carney or Poilievre has the best campaign – though Poilievre is a bit behind and needs a slightly better campaign than Carney just to pull even.
Carney is an excellent politician even while claiming not to be one. Already his political instincts and savvy show. Poilievre is also an excellent performer, but the sudden change to less ‘retail politics’ and more big, generation-defining issues at stake, doesn’t suit him quite as well. But he’s too smart to count out just yet, though my default expectation at this point is a Liberal majority.
Pretty remarkable considering Conservatives were ahead 46-20% at the start of 2025! Trump is a remarkable man.
Couple of points also worth noting, especially as on face value you’d think they are opposed to each other:
1. Contrary to Conservatives in the rest of the Western world, the Conservatives (still remain) ahead among 18-34 year-old voters and behind among older voters (weakest among 50-64 year-olds, Liberals strong there and stronger still among 65+).
2. In spite of this, and the well-known point that generally older voters are a more reliable and higher turnout bloc, Conservatives still remain significantly the most fixed in their vote intention of all the parties – albeit their advantage has slightly diminished and even they don’t have a very high level of ‘locked in’ voters (c.60%).
One caveat to point 1. above is that Conservatives and Liberals are both highly competitive across all age groups, there’s not the mammoth discrepancies that we’ve come to be used to in the UK, and to a lesser degree in Australia.
All of which suggests a very fascinating election campaign with everything to play for.
Who can avoid the banana skins?
B. S. Fairman says:
Monday, March 24, 2025 at 9:34 pm
To some degree it depends on how Quebec goes. If the Liberals win seats in Quebec, it makes harder on the conservatives. When the bloc wins a lot seats, the Liberals need to more elsewhere.
Also last time, the Liberals got a lower overall vote than the Conservatives – they were just more efficient with where they got their votes – winning more seats.
338 Canada does some modelling on what is required. They however need a new name as there are now more seats.
———
Quebec will for sure go more towards the Liberals than other provinces or continue to vote for the Quebec nationalist Bloc Quebecois – either way anyone vaguely connected to Trump will tank there. Quebeckers are generally keen to preserve their French language culture, they will be the most triggered Canadians by American aggression. Trump has killed the Quebec independence movement for now if it was still alive.
Earlier I saw an Economist Saul Eslake had a comment on a ‘Canada has had America’s back’ post.
Even in the 1990s, Silicon Valley engineers thought Canada was so cool, one workstation program was code named Moosehead, :).
The Conservatives announced an unfunded 15% income tax cut paid for with cuts to the public sector and foreign aid. I am not sure their attempts to distance themself from Trump is going to work with policies like that.
Carney cancelled his attendance at one of the French language debates – his French is passable but not strong – but his defence is he did not like the “pay to debate” model that TV station was proposing.
Angus Reid poll has the Liberals with an 8% lead over Conservatives, with an unlikely low for the NDP.
https://angusreid.org/canadian-election-carney-poilievre-trump-liberals-conservatives-ndp-bloc-polling/
Liberal: 46% (+4)
Conservative: 38% (+1)
NDP: 7% (-2)
BQ: 6% (-2)
Green: 1% (-1)
PP: 1% (0)
Other: 0% (-1)
Carney (Lib): 54% Favourable, 36% Unfavourable (+18)
Pollievre (Con): 35% Favourable: 59% Unfavourable (-24)
Singh (NDP): 33% Favourable, 58% Unfavourable: (-25)
Blanchet (BQ): 49% Favourable, 35% Unfavourable (+14)
I say “unlikely” because I doubt the NDP would get a vote in the single digit %, especially when tactical voting would still be a major thing in Canada, particularly in ridings where they wouldn’t even think of voting Liberal, but the NDP candidate might have a better chance of defeating the Conservative, assuming they don’t want them to win.
Still though, the NDP does seem to be in trouble lately.
Some more Canadian polls that were released today.
Mainstreet Research: (last poll 13 March)
https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/66c8dfb086a015b3b519e988/67e1b8ba64c854439b159438_2025-03-24_CAN_Daily_Tracker_Public.pdf
Liberal: 44% (+3)
Conservative: 38% (-1)
NDP: 7% (-1)
BQ: 6% (0)
Green: 1% (-1)
PP: 3% (0)
Other: 1% (-1)
Carney: 54% Favourable, 39% Unfavourable (+15)
Pollievre: 43% Favourable, 52% Unfavourable (-9)
Singh: 37% Favourable, 53% Unfavourable: (-16)
Pallas Data: (last poll 6 February)
https://files.constantcontact.com/f737aa99901/7e102697-65c2-4497-b3a2-b3ab99d442da.pdf
Liberal: 42.3% (+8.6)
Conservative: 37.8% (-1.8)
NDP: 8.4% (-3.5)
BQ: 7.0% (-0.2)
Green: 2.2% (-0.3)
PP: 2.1% (-1.2)
Other: 0.4% (-1.4)
It does seem to a contest that is looking very much like a two party contest which is a novelty in Canada. The Bloc and NDP always win some seats but both look like they are just going to get overwhelmed.
The lowest NDP vote was in 1993 (6.9%) and 2000 (8.5%). They have been around since 1961.
The lowest Bloc vote was in 2015 (4.7%) but the lowest number of seats was in 2011 (4 seats). They have only been around since 1992 but their many ideology of Quebec nationalism is running counter to the current national vibe of unity against Trump’s aggression.
It just keeps getting better and better for the Liberals with these new polls – I’m not surprised, I didn’t think they had peaked yet.
Worst of all (in a sense) for Conservatives is that it looks like there’s only so much THEY can do.
Take the Pallas poll above:
Libs +8.6
Cons -1.8
Everyone else combined -6.6
Or Mainstreet
Libs +3
Cons -1
Everyone else -3
Or Angus Reid
Libs +4
Cons +1 (yes, plus one)
E.E. – 6
So Conservatives need one hell of a campaign to claw back all those they have lost to Liberals and hope it is enough. All the above polls show a combined vote share for the 2 main parties in excess of 80%. I believe this will hold till polling day, and if so will be the first time the two largest parties combined have got >80% since 1958. Prior to this, it also happened in 1940 and 1930, I didn’t go back further than that!
If that trend doesn’t hold, I suspect it more likely to be Libs losing more votes than Cons. In other words, it’s a good trend for Libs.
Cons may be forced into running a ‘Hail Mary’ campaign of some description, which carries high risk and possible high reward.
Re the debates, that’s a mighty show of confidence (arrogance?) from Carney if he’s really choosing to skip one of the debates, regardless of his excuse. He may just have calculated (maybe correctly) that people just won’t care this time. Why give the BQ the air time, and voters aren’t going to flock to Cons Quebec in that large numbers just because of this.
I maintain my prediction of a Conservative win. (Majority)
Solid voter base means higher likelihood of turning out, and less likely to change their mind when they actually vote, therefore benefiting Conservatives.
It’s the economy and the keys, the economy has the Conservatives winning outside the margin of error, and the keys show a near-certain Conservative victory.
Polymarket still has the Conservatives as favourites.
Simply assuming the polls go back a little closer to what they were at before the bounce started would put the Conservatives way ahead.
The Anti-incumbent worldwide trend would favour Conservatives
The Global economic/political cycle favours Conservatives.
Pretty obvious if you ask me.
Arange
“the keys”?
Please enlighten me.
Oh – do you mean that 13 keys theory, like has been used to predict who wins the White House?
Even if so, this isn’t a ‘normal’ election so the predictive power of such indicators is greatly diminished. In the same way that a turnaround in the polls of this magnitude in such a short space of time has probably never happened before – at least not in favour of an incumbent government, least of all a 3rd term one.
BTSayssays:
Tuesday, March 25, 2025 at 10:47 pm
“Arange
“the keys”?
Please enlighten me.
Oh – do you mean that 13 keys theory, like has been used to predict who wins the White House?”
Yes.
In short, I change the definitions of them a little to match whatever country I’m using them for.
Arange – ok.
Another poll out today from Research Co, last one from 5 January, just before Trudeau resigned.
https://researchco.ca/2025/03/25/cdnpoli-march2025/
Liberal: 41% (+20)
Conservative: 37% (-10)
NDP: 9% (-6)
BQ: 7% (-3)
Green: 3% (0)
PP: 2% (0)
Other: 1% (0)
Provincial Results:
Atlantic Provinces: 42-40 to Liberals
Ontario: 43-40 to Liberals
British Columbia: 41-39 to Liberals
Alberta: 58-28 to Conservatives
Quebec: 43-22-22 to Liberals (vs. Conservatives and BQ)
Saskatchewan/Manitoba: 45-38 to Liberals (not sure if I believe this one. The Liberals hold 4/14 seats in Manitoba and no seats in Saskatchewan)
Looks like the Canadian Liberals are narrow favourites in Polymarket now. Still confident in my prediction though.
Things are looking dire for Canada’s conservatives.
In 20 polls taken over the last 10 days, Mark Carney’s Liberals were leading in all but two.. Their margin was as much as 8 points over the Poilievre Conservatives.
https://338canada.com/polls.htm
Arange – you and the markets are behind the polls. As it stands, it’s very clear that Carney is exceeding 2021 Liberal numbers. There has to be a substantive change in the race for him to lose seats – let alone for the Conservatives to get a majority. There could be that change – or it could continue heading in his favour. Without substantive reason, it’d be unwise to bet on the former.
Addasays:
Wednesday, March 26, 2025 at 12:02 pm
“Arange – you and the markets are behind the polls. As it stands, it’s very clear that Carney is exceeding 2021 Liberal numbers. There has to be a substantive change in the race for him to lose seats – let alone for the Conservatives to get a majority. There could be that change – or it could continue heading in his favour. Without substantive reason, it’d be unwise to bet on the former.”
I refer to my post at 9:46 PM, as I listed most of the reasons why the Conservatives will win a majority.
Looking at the comments above gives a person a good example of how most people think everything only goes in 1 direction, when in reality, it goes in cycles.
You’re sounding pretty arrogant using absolute language like “The conservatives will win a majority”.
And these “keys” you refer to have valid criticisms in how they’re not the be-all and end-all.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Keys_to_the_White_House#Criticism
Especially this quote, “If you took whoever led in the polls from every election from 1984 to 2020 and predicted they would win, you would have predicted 9/10 elections correctly, which is the exact same record Lichtman can claim.”
Kirsdarkesays:
Wednesday, March 26, 2025 at 12:35 pm
“You’re sounding pretty arrogant using absolute language like “The conservatives will win a majority”.
And these “keys” you refer to have valid criticisms in how they’re not the be-all and end-all.”
While I can see your point of view, this election is the most obvious election in quite a while, and Lichtman has his own definitions for the keys, which are slightly different to mine.
I see the Conservatives are picking a major economic fight in this election- against the former Governor of The Bank of England and Bank of Canada.
Good luck with that strategy!
Torchbearer – the Conservatives have no choice. The election will be won on the economy, in a Trump-threat-flavoured way. And some of his history is not so special when put under the spotlight – though there’s no denying Carney has the CV!
The point is, that only a few weeks ago Joe Public gave the Liberals awful ratings on the economy, and it’s the same Liberals is Poilievre’s point. It’s an uphill battle for him now, but reminding voters of the ‘lost Liberal decade’ is the right strategy to remind them why they’re also the wrong choice for winning the economic pressure brought on by the tariff war etc. (I put this in the Conservatives’ language, rather than meaning to express an opinion.)
Kirsdarke
“Saskatchewan/Manitoba: 45-38 to Liberals (not sure if I believe this one. The Liberals hold 4/14 seats in Manitoba and no seats in Saskatchewan)”
They may actually be leading in Manitoba, astonishing though that would normally be. But I agree an overall 7% lead in Sask. & Manitoba combined isn’t plausible.
On the other side of the ledger, Liberals will actually be leading in Atlantic Canada by 20% or more not 2%.
The sub-samples are too small, they’re not even reliable for the biggest provinces as it’s unweighted data (would never be done in the UK, but seems to be done freely in Canada and Australia in spite of the crosstabs’ limited value) and absolutely full of red herrings for the smaller provinces and territories.
BTSays @ #35 Wednesday, March 26th, 2025 – 6:45 pm
That’s true. I suppose the Provincial polling aggregates on this page are more useful for that sort of thing.
https://newsinteractives.cbc.ca/elections/poll-tracker/canada/
“this election is the most obvious in quite a while”
Okay Nostradamus. Apparently only your assumptions and “keys” which you don’t articulate at all are in the right, and not the polling which is straight up pointing to a Carney majority currently and where Poilievre is flailing on the campaign trail looking for an attack line. But according to you it’s inevitable that he will rebound. Sure. And not only that but to majority.
He could rebound. Perhaps to minority, majority is considerably more unlikely. But your arrogance in insisting on its inevitability is remarkable. And on the off chance it happens, you’ll crow about being correct when you’re really doing nothing more than blindly guessing. Worse, actually, since you’re guessing against the substantive evidence and only on vibes from months ago.
The game has changed in Canada. Trump dominates the agenda. Insisting on a reversion to Trudeau era is like post-debate Biden insisting that he not only can, but will get back to level terms like beforehand.
Adda – I guess Arange is entitled to his opinion/methods, not sure why that needs to touch a nerve this violently. If he’s wrong, enjoy it.
Ekos
Their polls are always the most volatile, but it’s certainly eye-catching to see a poll showing Liberals leading 50-35%!
But check these aspects to the poll for implausibility (certainly on the raw data, not to say they haven’t weighted correctly, although that doesn’t account for the gender discrepancy):
* Only leading by 5% in Atlantic Canada, with Libs’ 47% actually below their federal poll number in what is their strongest region.
* Leading 57-33% in Ontario.
* Their lead of 48-21-18% (Lib-Con-BQ) in Quebec is actually more consistent with a national 50-35% result, with Quebec being esp susceptible to high swings, but it’s still quite breathtaking numbers.
* Leading 58-27% among women, drawing 42-42% with men. There’s definitely a gender gap, but a widening to a 31% gap is NOT plausible.
Conclusion 1: treat this poll with caution.
Conclusion 2: caution or not, the headline numbers in this poll MAY be broadly correct. And if so, however you slice and dice the underlying numbers the ultimate result is still going to be a bloodbath when a party is on 50% of the vote nationally.
For comparison, other pollsters showing 4-8% leads for Lib. The 3 with the most recent fieldwork all show 4% leads.
But remember – 4% lead is still a clear majority for Libs, their votes are distributed very efficiently and seat numbers can rise very fast with a few % rise in VI.
Ekos – one more thing is the changes from last Ekos poll in early March:
Lib + 9%
Con -1%
NDP -6%
BQ -1%
Green -1%
PPC +1%
If NDP really end up polling around 7-8% as a good many polls today are showing, one plausible outcome is them not winning any seats at all nationwide.
The gender gap in other polls taken the last few days where the numbers are given, are 10,11,12,13,24%.
Quite a broad range but none <10%.
Another bad lead measure for Conservatives is that whilst underlying numbers from different pollsters are all over the place in the detail, one thing is consistent: Liberal's strongest % numbers are from older voters with all pollsters. As we know, they are the most likely to vote so if this measure holds true an election day surprise in favour of Cons is unlikely.
Cons mostly still have very respectable numbers with older voters too, but the gap is substantial because the smaller parties are weakest with older voters who seem to have flocked to the Liberals under the perceived bastion of stability aka Mark Carney.
@BTSays at 7:51pm
Yeah, I’m gonna need to see some similar figures from other polls before I believe those EKOS numbers, I don’t think they’re credible.
Also looking at the page where the results come from, there’s the interesting finding that polling from the past 3 days has it at 48.3-35.5 to the Liberals, compared to the past 5 days where it was 49.6-34.6 to the Liberals, indicating a slight narrowing over the last half of the poll sample, although of course these numbers aren’t that useful since they have a lower sample and a higher margin of error.
https://www.ekospolitics.com/index.php/2025/03/liberals-maintain-commanding-lead-with-major-seat-efficiency-advantage/
Also upcoming is an Abacus Poll, which normally leans Conservative. Its poll last week had a 39-36 lead for the Conservatives, but according to David Coletto on twitter (he works for Abacus), the latest one has a 38-37 lead for the Liberals. I suppose we’ll have to wait to see the full numbers on that one once it’s released.
@BTSays No nerve is being touched, beyond that people are entitled to opinions, but not their own facts. And the facts don’t support any kind of “inevitable” Conservative majority. I am quite willing to call out absurd claims like that when they appear. Specially when it’s apparently so obvious an outcome for the polls to turn by 10-20 points back.
Adda
I don’t know why you’re worrying about it. I find it quirky too, but no-one is canvassing votes on here. In a month’s time it will be settled either way.
Clearly it has touched a nerve, and reading your post wasn’t very pleasant if I’m honest, on what is quite a nice thread.
Kirsdarke
It’s noticeable that the very few pollsters to show a small Conservative lead, or a much smaller Liberal lead, have the combined vote shares for these two parties lower than other pollsters.
Putting it a different way, the Conservatives are much the same with these pollsters as they are with everyone else, but they don’t seem to have got the memo that the Libs are 40% or above and are showing higher figures for ‘others’ especially NDP.
This is a discussion thread @BTSays. I find it rather strange that you take issue with my posts and not with the original comment. It’s not “quirky” to go declaring that a Conservative majority is inevitable – that seems to be more stifling of discussion than anything, as if there is no point in your own worthy contributions discussing polling. And I don’t have any issue being critical of such claims which diminish the value of polling. If you’re only taking issue with my tone, then I’m just going to say that I think it is merited.
In the interests of focussing on the polling, I will also note that the most popular aggregator, 338Canada, now has the Liberals on 185 seats. Carney’s upswing has continued over the week since he became premier and it’s not clear just where the ceiling lies.
Other aggregators are similar such as Tooclosetocall (187) and Scrimshaw (192)
Of course polls are fun but what matters is when voters mark their papers.
There will be a number of conservative voters who won’t touch Polivier and might just move to the NDP or the Bloc rather than not vote.
And in some ridings that could likely mean an unexpected liberal win or retention.
Just look at the UK election last year where a number of Labour candidates won because a lot of Tory voters switched to Reform rather than Labour increasing their vote share massively.
Labour beat Liz Truss not because of a huge upswing in their vote but because Liz Truss’s fell so dramatically.
Here is the Abacus Poll mentioned yesterday.
https://abacusdata.ca/2025-federal-election-poll-liberals-close-in-on-conservatives-ndp-declines-polling-2/
Liberal: 38% (+2)
Conservative: 37% (-2)
NDP: 11% (-1)
If you’re impressed with Mark Carney’s C.V., take a look at his progressive, economist wife, Diana Fox Carney. She’s not the typical politician’s wife. Canada may be getting two for the price of one.
Here are some views written when Mark became the first non-Brit to take over the Old Lady of Threadneedle Street.
“Diana, was born in England to a “wealthy pig-farming family.” Her sister, Lady Rotherwick, is married to a shipping heir.. She attended prestigious Marlborough College in Wiltshire.
The couple met in the 1990s while studying at the University of Oxford and bonded over their love of ice hockey.
Tall, blond Diana was one of the stronger skaters on the women’s team of the University Ice Hockey Club. Mark Carney was the goaltender and joint captain of the men’s team, which he led to victories against Cambridge University in 1993 and 1994.
According to the university, British-Canadian Diana was known for “her ability to skate rings around her opponents and move effortlessly through the opposing defensive line”.
She has a Master of Arts degree in Philosophy, Politics and Economics and a Master of Science in agricultural economics from the University of Oxford and an MA in international relations from the University of Pennsylvania.
Diana may have come from a privileged background, but her career and politics expose a more radical edge. A development economist, she has been described as a “widely respected expert on global climate and energy policy”
Some of her views have a distinctly leftwing slant.
In a piece on inequality, the mother of four wrote warmly about the Occupy movement – which channelled public anger against the bankers.
And despite her husband being on £624,000 from his role as Governor of the Bank of England, she blamed the “visibility and excess” of those in the “top 0.1%” for increasing the gap between the rich and the poor.
She even quotes from The Spirit Level, a book that suggests economic growth is less important than equality of income, declaring: “The politics of division are coming home to roost.”
Ms. Fox Carney is scathing about our consumerist culture, saying that “having more stuff does not make us happy.”
She says that she has “seen, first-hand, the devastation that our wilful refusal to change our consumerist habits is wreaking on marginal communities.”
As well as being vice-president of research in a “progressive” thinktank in Canada focused on issues concerning climate, energy, social mobility and inequality , Fox Carney also ran an eco-products review site. She later became director of strategy and engagement for the London-based Institute for Public Policy Research.
The author of The Spirit Level, Richard Wilkinson, says of Fox Carney: “It’s important to have that progressive thinking we are beginning to get among a few people in places where they are likely to influence the multinationals and the financial sector, the main bastions of the rise in income inequality.”