It is probably no coincidence that two of our nation's Liberal parties, one in Ottawa and one at Queen's Park, both decided to tackle income inequality. Harnessing the growing frustration that the system is rigged in favour of the rich seems like a recipe for reaping electoral rewards.Both policy approaches appeared well-thought out. The Ontario Liberals promised to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour while the federal Liberals proposed going after wealthy individuals who use private corporations to reduce their taxes.As we watch the federal Liberals complete a rather painful climb-down from their original position, it's fascinating to play a game of political compare and contrast. While the Ontario Liberals seem to have hit it out of the park, their federal cousins have become mired in a public relations disaster.What happened? What did the Ontario crowd do that the Ottawa gang failed to do?First, Ontario picked an issue that was understandable. People get the minimum wage. Most of us have held a minimum wage job at some point in our lives and for 10 per cent of Ontario workers it is a present-day reality. In fact, 30 per cent of working Ontarians make less than $15 an hour. They know how hard it is to survive on such a pittance.Compare that with the concept of private corporations. Not only did most Canadians have no idea what the federal government was talking about, but when you started adding in discussion of income sprinkling and passive investments, their eyes glazed over.I am not suggesting that one policy was universally adored and the other hated, but the nature of the opposition to both policies was very different.In Ontario, those opposed to an increased minimum wage tends to be the small business community — a group that has never traditionally supported the Liberals.. Their opposition was predictable, echoing the type of doom and gloom that has accompanied every single increase going back to the 1920s. Most Liberal-leaning voters simply tuned them out.The opposition's case was only weakened when corporate giants such as Loblaw entered the fray. It is hard to feel sorry for a multibillion-dollar company singing the blues about paying its lowest paid workers a couple of bucks more an hour.The federal situation was different. Although those opposing the tax changes included some of the usual suspects, they were also joined by the most unlikely bunch — physicians. Doctors usually avoid the political fray and the public actually seems to like them (full disclosure, I am married to one). Their involvement not only garnered public attention, but their efforts to link the policy changes to all sorts of peripheral issues, such as the lack of paid maternity leave and pensions along with difficult working conditions, made the proposals even more incomprehensible.Things only got worse when hardworking farmers came on the scene. Fighting back tears, they told us that the new federal tax policy would prevent them from passing on the farm that had been in their family for generations to their children.In politics, you're always in trouble when your opponent's story starts to resemble a Hallmark movie plot.And what of the opposition? In Ontario, they were caught flat-footed. The NDP, which has always called for a higher minimum wage, was rendered irrelevant. The Tories, meanwhile, floundered. Realizing that for every business owner they made happy by opposing the increase, scores of minimum wage workers would be angry, Ontario PC Leader Patrick Brown adopted the politically mature approach. He decided to oppose and support the policy at the same time. Officially, Brown agrees that the minimum wage should eventually, someday, go to $15, but he is critical of the government's time-frame and the lack of a "cost-benefit analysis" as well as "proper notice to the business community".Wow, those provincial PC election rallies are going to be crazy. Just imagine the chants: "What do we want?"... "a proper cost-benefit analysis"... "When do we want it?"... "over a reasonable time frame!"Federally, it's been pretty simple. The Conservatives have simply opposed the plan entirely. "Not going to happen if we win," is actually a fairly effective campaign slogan..Maybe the underlying message of this analysis is that voters may be changing. Over the past few decades, politicians have won support by creating enemies and knocking them down; just look at Mike Harris and Stephen Harper. It's easy to understand why the federal Liberals would follow suit. Going after fat cats who don't pay enough tax probably seemed like a winning strategy; yet, it didn't work particularly well.Kathleen Wynne decided to go in a different direction. Instead of talking about hurting folks financially, she talked about helping those earning the least. And it seemed to resonate.Maybe the most important lesson from a compare and contrast exercise is that, despite public cynicism and frustration, voters seem to like a positive story.John Milloy is a former MPP and Ontario Liberal cabinet minister currently serving as the director of the Centre for Public Ethics and assistant professor of public ethics at Waterloo Lutheran Seminary, and the inaugural practitioner in residence in Wilfrid Laurier University's Political Science department. He is also a lecturer in the University of Waterloo's Master of Public Service Program.  John can be reached at [email protected] or follow him on Twitter @John_Milloy. A version of this column was originally published in the online publication QP Briefing.