Ignatieff now opposes "broad-based" tax cuts

As pointed out by other bloggers, Michael Ignatieff seems to have changed his tune in relation to tax cuts for middle-income earners. So much so, that it is now hard to know exactly what the leader of the Liberals is expecting out of the Conservative budget, to be announced next week.

Two weeks ago, Ignatieff stood for tax cuts targeted at medium- to low-income Canadians. He said:

"I think it’s going to be important to get stimulus into the Canadian economy fast, so we may be looking at tax cuts very quickly, tax cuts targeted at medium and low income, to boost their purchasing power fast," Mr. Ignatieff told the crowd of 200 at Neptune Theatre.

When asked later what form those tax cuts might come in, Mr. Ignatieff told reporters he’s in favour of the kind that are permanent, rather than a one-time break.

But today, reports have him taking a different stance on the same issue, possibly in a effort to oppose Conservative tax cuts which are expected in the budget. He is now saying that under the current economic situation, and with the impending federal deficit, that it is not the time for major tax cuts.

"This is not the moment for broad-based tax cuts because we think it will lead us into structural deficit and our children will be paying the price for Stephen Harper's mistakes for years to come," the Liberal leader said in an interview with the National Post.

What explains this sudden shift? Were the tax cuts he initially favoured not going to impact the deficit? To me, it looks like the Liberal leader and his team are developing policy on the fly.

Kelly McParland eludes to the difference of opinion between Ignatieff with his original stand on tax cuts and a Toronto Star editorial which seemed to have missed the Liberal party's memo, as it argued against tax cuts.

Maybe Ignatieff was notified of the piece and realized that his position was not that of an "authentic liberal." Maybe he realized that he better reframe his discourse before he loses the support of the estrablishment he relies on for his success and before he is seen as a "neo-con" by his party's voter base.