Warum Carney einen politischen Veteranen als Finanzminister wegen einer Exekutive ausgewählt hat

The meat of the article, for those who are paywalled is

> To some, the choice makes Mr. Carney’s promise of change seem absurd. Voters wanted something different, and the first thing the Prime Minister does is pick a guy who helped orchestrate the mess the new government is supposed to fix.

>Insiders see it differently. The role of finance minister is a political beast, they say, and it is not for the uninitiated.

>Because the finance department is so central to a government’s ambitions, its minister plays multiple roles: executing the prime minister’s agenda, while also pushing back on the PM; managing requests from caucus for money, but often telling them “no”; and leaning on the department’s experts, while also understanding the bureaucrats see fresh meat every time a new minister is named and pray they’ll get their pet projects green lit.

>This consensus was voiced by seven sources who have worked for Liberal and Conservative governments over the last two decades, many of whom have held both senior ranking political jobs as well as high-level corporate roles.

TLDR: minister of finance is a highly political role, with lots of financially savvy bureaucrats on staff to assist. Champagne is a political animal & business leaders like him.

I think that’s a fair assessment, and I think it makes sense that Carney is confident in his own financial credentials, so shoring up the political side of this file makes sense