Just a couple of clarification questions that occurred, if I may.

> From: Richard Katz (rbkatz@ix.netcom.com)

1.Mr. Katz wrote--

>In contrast, there is little doubt in my mind that the
severity of the
>DPJ's defeat in the 2010 UH elections was largely due
to Kan making
>the tax hike the centerpiece of his campaign.

If so, why did Kan make the tax hike the centerpiece of his campaign?
Was he, as Noda, "willing to sacrifice his own career and the DPJ's electoral chances"?

Also, the LDP's 2010 Manifesto said they will "reform the tax system including a consumption tax increase"
(p.8 headeline). However, they won!

The Social Democrats pledged not to increase the consumption tax and they lost.

2. Short of a miracle DPJ will lose the next election.
But is that because of the tax hike/ or the debacle within the party, or the current sluggish economy?

Firstly, DPJ no longer needs to fight the next election on a tax hike platform. So Noda has put himself in a much better position than Kan in facing the election.
More importantly Noda's supporters and DPJ party leaders are likely to retain their seats, and the anti-tax hike group is more likely to lose their seats.
This begs the question; are they going to lose their seats because the party passed the tax increase or have they become strongly anti-tax hike because they had little chance of retaining their seats?

The same question applies to parties.

The parties destined to win big are not the anti-tax hike parties. They are LDP and the Osaka-Hashimoto group (and probably the Komeito--but the Komeito can never win big since their supporters are loyal but not growing). The LDP and Komeito helped Noda pass the tax increase and has blood on their hands.
Hashimoto wants to change the consumption tax into a local revenue base. By contrast, none of the fringe parties campaigning on a anti-tax platform are likely to increase their seats, particularly to Ozawa group.

3. My pet point is, which I don't expect to convince anyone, that leaders who want to win power commit to policy leadership (in a competitive party system not like LDP single party rule), which means convincing the voters that unpleasant economic policies are necessary ones. Any major party leader who wants to build up a reputation of being a responsible and a competent manager of the economy will sound more credible if the person speaks the "truth." Otherwise, why did Walter Mondale explicitly say he will raise taxes? Why is Paul Ryan calling for sacrifice?

4. My final point is, in the current Japanese situation of party fluidity, in which the number of parties competing seem to change daily, the incumbents are unsafe, and a huge number of districts are up for grabs, no one can even remotely predict the outcome not even the number of parties running.

>From a technical point of view, identifying the cause
of electoral
>change is
difficult even in a stable party system like the U.S.
And even there, the single best predictor is the economic situation and not any single issue,including a tax increase. (Well, of course slavery in the mid-1880s is a totally different matter) Did H. W. Bush lose reelection because he raised taxes or because the economy didn't pick up? Actually, the economic forecast was rosier than now when Noda took office and committed to tax hikes.

I should stop.

Nobuhiro Hiwatari