There’s been some online discussion lately about just how “on top of things” our prime minister is. I’ve seen a few short clips of interviews where it does feel like Mark Carney is having trouble clearly communicating his message. But a few short clips and some online rumors are hardly enough to draw intelligent conclusions.
So I figured I’d grab some transcripts and set some AI models loose analyzing their quality
I guess I personally would prefer to think the worst of anyone who plans to throw around that much money running up our national debt. After all, the idea that such unprecedented spending choices could have been the result of rational thinking is a bit jarring. So to be honest, I’d be fine if it turned out Carney was a mumbling idiot.
Sadly, however, that’s not what the evidence shows.
I figured there was nothing to be gained by analyzing the official speech transcripts maintained by the PMO. After all, those words came from professional speechwriters transmitted through teleprompters and would reveal little about Carney himself.
But there are plenty of live interviews available on YouTube. So I collected transcripts from these four relatively recent videos:
Mark Carney: Canada will deal with US ‘on our own terms’ | BBC News
Exclusive interview with Prime Minister Mark Carney | APTN News
Carney vows to double non-US exports, says Canada must ‘play to win’ (Global News) - this interview appeared to be scripted
EXCLUSIVE: Prime Minister Mark Carney: ‘We can be an energy superpower’ (CTV News)
Altogether, those give us around 10,000 words (including those of the interviewers) which represent about one full hour of speaking.
I then passed those transcripts to multiple AI models, asking them to:
Assess how coherent, clear, and comprehensible his speaking is. Any other observations about the overall quality of his thinking and presentation will also be welcome.
Here’s how one summary assessment looked:
🔹 Observations
He rarely contradicts himself, showing disciplined message control.
He uses language of process (“consultation,” “alignment,” “conditions”) more than outcomes—suggesting a managerial rather than visionary instinct.
His command of complex subjects gives him gravitas, but the lack of concise closure in live interviews could frustrate impatient audiences.
His strongest moments occur when bridging historical analogy to present action—he situates policy in a moral and national continuum.
In summary:
Mark Carney speaks with the precision and scope of an economist and the caution of a central banker. His speech is highly coherent and intellectually rigorous, though occasionally verbose and overly hedged. When scripted, he communicates vision with clarity and force. When unscripted, his mind’s complexity sometimes outpaces his articulation, leading to dense but thoughtful answers.
Here are some thoughts with a bit more depth:
Unscripted (APTN, CTV, BBC)
In live Q&A settings, Carney’s clarity varies sharply.
He often starts with a meta-statement (“I’m going to answer that in a different way if you don’t mind”) that buys time but lengthens response time.
Sentences frequently nest clauses within clauses, making them cognitively heavy for listeners:
“Sometimes you need to create the conditions, and that’s what we’ve done, to create the conditions for possibilities, then the question is what do people… what are people before…”
He often reframes questions rather than answering directly, especially on contentious issues (C-5, pipelines, C69).
Verdict: In formal addresses, he’s lucid and powerful; in conversational interviews, clear in logic but verbally tangled, reflecting a mind thinking faster than his speech.
Intellectual and Conceptual Quality
Carney’s thinking is structured, integrative, and systems-oriented.
He repeatedly emphasizes interconnectedness:
Linking economic, Indigenous, and climate policy (“aligns with the country’s climate goals,” “building nations, plural”).
Defining “nation-building projects” as multi-criteria endeavors (economic, environmental, social).
Articulating economic transitions as historical hinge moments, echoing central bank language.
He avoids easy populist phrasing. His reasoning is evidence-based and institutional, drawing from his economics and finance background. However, that same technocratic instinct sometimes creates distance from emotional immediacy—his empathy is conceptual, not visceral.
Verdict: Very high intellectual coherence and policy integration, though sometimes overly abstract for general audiences.
Broader Observations on Thinking & Presentation
Strategic humility – Repeatedly deflects top-down project picking (“I don’t have a preset notion… it has to come up from those groups”). Signals collaborative federalism without sounding weak.
Pragmatic pivot – Acknowledges his own past (carbon-tax advocacy in Value(s)) then pivots to results: “It’s not much… we can do much better with different approaches.” No ideological backflip, just evolution.
Metaphorical repertoire – “Kaleidoscope has been shaken,” “hinge moments,” “swing for the fences.” Vivid, but never purple; each image carries policy weight.
Lexical range without alienating – Deploys “revealed preference,” “marginal production,” “fiscal capacity” in the same breath as “roll up our sleeves” and “low-hanging fruit.”
Time management in answers – Even under time pressure (CTV wrap-up), he lands the plane: “The test is Canadians deserve results, not rhetoric.”
Verdict in One Sentence
Carney speaks like a central-banker-turned-premier: architecturally rigorous, occasionally verbose in clause stacking, but always propulsively clear and strategically nimble.
Weaknesses:
His responses are frequently verbose and circuitous. He often takes several sentences to reach a point that could be stated more directly
There’s significant repetition both within and across interviews - he returns to the same examples (Grace Bay Point, energy corridors, indigenous ownership) multiple times
He has a tendency to dodge direct questions by reframing them or providing lengthy preambles before (sometimes never) answering what was actually asked
Comprehensibility Issues:
Over-qualification: Carney frequently hedges and adds caveats, making his actual position unclear. For example, on pipelines, he says “yes” but surrounds it with so many conditions that the commitment becomes ambiguous.
Abstract language: He often speaks in generalities (”create conditions for possibilities,” “align with interests”) rather than concrete specifics.
Self-interruption: He frequently breaks off mid-thought to add parenthetical points, losing the thread: “And look, uh, the president I I would distinguish between what the president wants, um, and what the president expects.”
Notable Patterns
The “Process Answer”: When asked about specific projects or decisions, Carney consistently deflects to describing process rather than taking positions. On Energy East, Ring of Fire, C-69, emissions caps - he says he’s open but won’t commit until after consultation. This is politically cautious but intellectually evasive.
The Trump Question: His refusal to directly answer whether he trusts Trump (”I will work with them and negotiate with them... my answer is my answer”) exemplifies his tendency to avoid clear statements on difficult topics.
Contradiction Management: When confronted about apparent contradictions (his book advocating carbon taxes vs. eliminating the consumer carbon tax), he pivots to results-oriented language rather than addressing the philosophical shift.
Overall Assessment
Carney is articulate but not particularly clear. He’s clearly intelligent and well-informed, with genuine expertise in economics and finance. However, his communication style is that of a technocrat or central banker - careful, qualified, process-oriented - rather than a clear political communicator.
His thinking appears fundamentally sound but cautious. He’s trying to thread multiple needles simultaneously: reassuring the oil and gas sector while maintaining climate commitments, promising bold action while emphasizing consultation, asserting Canadian independence while avoiding direct conflict with Trump.
The result is communication that feels studied and strategic rather than candid. Listeners who want direct answers to direct questions will likely find him frustrating. Those who appreciate nuance and complexity might see sophistication, but even sympathetic listeners may struggle to identify his actual commitments versus his aspirations.
You might also be interested in these posts:
What Is It About Politicians and Corporate Bribery Scandals?
On the surface, this is about a strange venture involving Canadian private equity firm Brookfield Asset Management - whose chair until a few weeks ago was Mark Carney. But it seems to me that this particular event is really just one example of a much larger pattern.
What Does Mark Carney Really Think?
Watching Mark Carney lead the Liberals through this election has been weird. I mean, the decades of very public academic and professional thinking that distinguished Carney’s brand seem to have disappeared in a puff of smoke.
I'd love to see a similar analysis of Poilievre
Given that in "unscripted", APTN and CTV are on his payroll and BBC is ideologically aligned with Carney, the softball environment would put Carney well within his comfort zone. I wonder how he would fare being interviewed by Ezra Levant, for example. Intelligence is no substitute for ethics and honesty. His carbon obsession is patently obvious to all who care to see it. He has no obvious strategy in negotiating with the tariff president other than false machismo that disappears in the extreme when in contact with Trump. Given our complete lack of leverage one would think he would consider abandoning some of our sacred cows such as supply management, and protectionism on Banks, Telcos and culture. In end stage democracy I believe we are transitioning into strong-man tyranny and in Canada's case Carney is just an ideologically driven slippery smooth and more devious version of the loose cannon megalomaniac in the White House.