The Victim Prince
Under the 70-year reign of Her Late Majesty Queen Elizabeth, it could be said that she rarely put a foot wrong in her day job, bolstering the monarchy in an increasingly republican and modernist age.
However, while her public-facing role was almost without blemish, the old saying about not being able to choose your family has, and continues to, undermine the royal family. It could certainly be said that Prince Andrew was a concern during the Queen’s later years, as were Prince Harry and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex.
Indeed, this rumbles on. Presumably in an attempt to curry favour with the general public, as his mother Princess Diana once did, Prince Harry has opted for the heartfelt interview approach. However, unlike the 1990s, we are now in an era where everyone claims to be a victim. With so much competition, it’s difficult to gain an edge when you bring out the violin—even a royal one. Add to this the fact that Harry and his wife have done rather well for themselves in recent years through a book deal and a Netflix series, and it becomes clear that the grievance is not financial, even though that seems to be a factor.
Instead, it appears to be a gripe against the establishment, which in its own way has ostracised him in an Edward VIII-style fashion—stripping HRH titles and all. He should know there’s no coming back from this. Yet somehow, the age and ill health of his father seem to act like a red rag to a bull, in the same way he once grumbled to his grandmother. It is a shame that there appears to be no one in Harry’s entourage to advise him on how to read the room—apart from Meghan, who seems to be looking at the wrong room.
Carney’s Canada
Although it was widely remarked that Mark Carney winning the Canadian election was akin to pulling a rabbit out of a hat, it’s Politics 101 that when faced with a bullying threat—whether of words or war—a politician is likely to win, and win big. Indeed, many politicians thrive on creating enemies and causes, whether real or imaginary, to stay in power. Putin has excelled at this via Crimea, Ukraine, and demonising the decadent West.
The big bad wolf, in the form of Donald Trump suggesting that Canada become the 51st state of the US, was a gift that guaranteed any non-Conservative candidate for Prime Minister was going to prevail. Ironically, given that patriotism is typically considered a Conservative trait, Carney’s real skill lay in channelling this into a “them versus us” narrative—one that Canadians rallied behind. Indeed, if there were a Canadian version of Coco the Clown, even he would have won the election. No wonder the newly elected leader felt jubilant enough to hit the dance floor and show off his dad-dancing skills.
The good news for Mr Carney, beyond all this, is that for the rest of his term—and possibly beyond, if rumours of Trump seeking a third term are true—he will have someone across the border who practically guarantees his reelection. That is, at least, until the US Army marches across the border. In the meantime, it will be interesting to see how Liberal policies play out for an electorate that may be weary of them after his predecessor’s term. Without Trump’s intervention, Canadians might actually have been quite open to Conservative policies and attitudes.
That said, Mr Carney—who proved himself to be a pragmatist in previous globalist-friendly roles such as Governor of the Bank of England—is more than capable of staying within the tramlines he’s been given. Once the dust settles on his achievement and his celebratory dancing fades from memory, Carney will face the task of steering a minority government. His election is also a reminder of the nature of political fortune: the difference between a great leader, a failure, or a has-been may be no more profound than dumb luck. Former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau will surely be aware that had he clung to power a few weeks longer, he could have claimed the open-door victory that Carney now enjoys.
The Lights Go Out in Spain
As is often the case in today’s 24-hour news cycle, it’s not so much the news itself, but the factors behind it, that form the real story. Following the Spanish power cuts, the true intrigue was not the temporary regression to 20th-century life—with radios, candles, and abanicos instead of air conditioning and the internet—but how such a situation could have happened in the first place.
Forget about your phone battery dying or being stuck underground—this was bigger. And as with so many issues today, the possible causes split along political lines. The right blamed the dominance of renewable energy sources such as solar and wind. The left leaned towards the theory of a hacker attack. In the end, in a situation analogous to the “go woke, go broke” phrase, it turned out to be a rare imbalance between fossil fuel and renewable energy production.
Perhaps it would have been better if the cause had simply been weather or hacking. Going forward, the Spanish grid must ensure that supplies and software are robust, so this doesn’t happen again—even if the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow (the former of which the UK government is said to be spending £50m on). But the damage is done. The moral of the story is perhaps that, as with aviation disasters, it is only after the fact that we learn how to prevent them and uncover the system’s weaknesses.
The First 100 Days
We all know democracy is not exactly rocket science. Yet we are increasingly living in an age where the power of the vote, and its translation into political action, is questioned or sidelined. Despite being well into the 21st century, the world is still dominated by 20th-century-style tyrants and dictators, as though it were 1925 rather than 2025. Perhaps the failure of democracies to deliver on the people’s will is why we still have leaders like Putin, Xi, and Erdogan.
In so-called democratic nations, the initial wave of populism a decade ago tested the system. Voters pushed for politicians who would do what they said they would, only to be thwarted by the swamp in the US or the Blob in the UK—seen in Trump’s first presidency and the aftermath of the Brexit vote. Unfortunately for populists, the political establishment in both countries doubled down on ignoring the electorate’s wishes.
Even though it could be argued that Trump has not delivered results in his first hundred days, he remains in the game simply because he appears to be trying. Executive orders, peace initiatives, JFK files, and DOGE—all have emerged. In contrast, the Labour government in the UK has demonstrated the kind of political double-speak that turns voters away. Perhaps this isn’t a populist resurgence, but a shift towards valuing politicians who act as representatives rather than rulers.
The prevailing model treats citizens like children, asked to swallow increasingly bitter medicine. It’s no wonder the anti-globalist sentiment is growing. Trump’s appeal may lie less in his being “leader of the free world” and more in his persona as a CEO who delivers results. That said, with the tariff debacle, he’s looked more like King Canute than a world leader. In this light, the 100-day benchmark is arguably more useful as a measure of failure than of success.
Still, the benchmark may serve as a wake-up call—especially in a week marked by the firing of National Security Advisor Michael Waltz. While typically seen as a failure, the swift removal of a key figure might actually be a win. In this new era of politics, retaining underperformers for face-saving reasons is no longer tolerable. In the UK, figures like Chancellor Reeves and Energy Secretary Miliband may face similar scrutiny. The same logic may even explain Elon Musk’s strategic withdrawal from the spotlight—perhaps a recognition that political entanglement had become a liability to his business.
6 Votes
Given that UK Reform Party leader Nigel Farage was once close with President Trump, he may have found his way back into the American leader’s good graces with a by-election win as politically dramatic as winning a presidency. The headline-grabbing six-vote victory in Runcorn was the stuff of political dreams.
The situation is reminiscent of Trump’s 2024 comeback. Critics point to Brexit’s failure and argue a Reform government would fare no better. Yet the British public seem to have decided otherwise. They may not know exactly what Reform would deliver, but they know what they don’t want. It seems they would rather risk economic or political decline than endure a stagnant, unresponsive uniparty represented by Labour and the Conservatives.
Reform’s success may lie simply in listening to voters and echoing their concerns, while Prime Minister Keir Starmer appears increasingly out of touch. His response to the Bronco by-election loss—that he “gets it”—rings hollow when the government’s policies are clearly the opposite of what people want.
Starmer’s handling of migration, particularly shifting asylum seekers from hotels to private rentals, is viewed not as a win, but as doubling down on an unpopular policy. Cutting winter fuel allowances for 10 million pensioners while maintaining foreign aid budgets hasn’t helped either. His pledge to support “working people” is undermined by the ambiguity of the term itself.
Ironically, replacing the word “class” with “people” has only alienated more voters. With tax hikes for the rich and welfare cuts for the poor, even committed socialists are disillusioned. If Labour is spiralling, the root cause may be its communication failure—a political Achilles’ heel. Both Labour and the Conservatives have overlooked the fact that strength in politics relies on popularity. Until recently, both parties have either failed to engage or simply hidden, leaving the door wide open for Reform.
Disclaimer & Declaration of Interest:
The information, investment views, and recommendations in this Zaks Traders Cafe interview are provided for general information purposes only. Nothing in this interview should be construed as a promotion or solicitation to buy or sell any financial product relating to any companies under discussion or referred to or to engage in or refrain from doing so or engage in any other transaction. Any opinions or comments are made to the best of the knowledge and belief of the commentator but no responsibility is accepted for actions based on such opinions or comments. The commentators may or may not hold investments in the companies under discussion.
