My belated response to Rick's question is that I don't have a very strong opinion one way or the other, but on balance I personally oppose raising the consumption tax. Given Japan's relatively high poverty level and rising inequality, I think raising the regressive consumption tax is a mistake (even with some allowance for helping those with lower incomes). I think Japan does need to raise taxes/revenues, albeit in a more progressive way. Although I have not spent time looking at the pros and cons in detail, I would prefer Rick's alternative tax/revenue increase ideas to raising the consumption tax. That said, I can't help but add that as a resident of Norway, where the consumption tax is 25% (15% for food), and the economy is booming, it's difficult for me to see raising the tax to a mere 10% as a big problem (except, again, for those on the low income end of the spectrum).

I would make one other point about public opinion and the consumption increase: I think Rick may be over reading the lessons of the 2010 election. I agree that Kan's sudden announcement that he wanted to increase the consumption tax hurt the DPJ, but I would argue that it was the way he did this more than the policy position itself that hurt the DPJ. Making an open ended announcement, with few details, weeks before the election, less than a year after the DPJ manifesto had promised no tax increase before 2013 (and the implication that Kan wanted to increase the tax by 2012), was what hurt most. His failure to define his policy allowed his opponents to do it for him in the worst possible light. Noda, on the other hand, had a lot of time to define and explain his policy.
Consequently, I would not expect Noda's tax increase to hurt the DPJ as much. Also, Minna no tou also did very well in 2009, and their improved performance in 2010 is in part a function of fielding more candidates.

Hashimoto's party may do very well, but I would bet that this such an outcome will have more to do with its anti-nuclear stance rather than due to the tax increase issue.

Paul Midford