Left, Left, Left, Right Left.

The middle is crowded indeed. But when you really think about it, it isn't at all. the Left is crowded, and by crowding that space, the Liberals will be in opposition forever.

This is not intended to be a treatise on the future of the Liberal Party. It is a treatise on what I care about and how I think we can win.

With all due respect to Prime Minister Chretien (L - Dreamboat), he was more lucky than good. He has a divided opposition, and didn't even have to campaign in Ontario. Capitalizing on that luck, he led the country with grace and honour. Sadly, he was brought down by one of his own (L - Impatient) who thought he leaned too far left.

The tragedy of Stephane Dion (L - Wrong place, Wrong time) is that he is actually a very conservative thinker on many economic issues. That he was painted as a tax-spend lefty is a gross-overs implication of what he stood for.

Don't get me wrong, I am not a SD apologist. Far from it. I wasn't sure it was a good choice two years ago, and after watching for two years, I am sure there are better candidates.

There is significant media coverage about how the "Left" is divided. What I think that means is that there are two left of centre parties who are vying for similar votes. Maybe that is true, but I dont' think so. I think Jack Layton is in for a hell of a shock this morning when he gets to Caucus and the cadre of Northern Ontario MPs are now more than a rump in his team. His caucus is now much more than lefties and lesbians - they are also lumberjacks (get it?).

Their turn is going to be decidedly 'right' as a result. Or, which is more likely, there will be more internal push back against the 'Toronto Danforth' crowd on a lot of issues - starting with gay rights, gun rights, climate change - and the list goes on.

Let's look at a handful of successful 'liberals' in the past - Clinton (D- That is MR.), McGuinty (L-Sigh, why not?), McKenna (L- What are you waiting for), Charest (L- will have half of Quebec named after him by 2020) - all of them stood on the right hand side of the ledger. Trudeau (L- that is SENIOR), in many ways, also was a pragmatist before anything else. Yes, he implemented serious new programs and spending - but not what I would call 'lefty' spending.

Of course, maybe it is the term 'left' and 'right' that we have a problem with.

These are all examples to say that I don't think going to the left is going to solve anything. I think radiating outwards, left and right simultaneously, is a far better strategy.

And who starts encroaching from the right, with talk of anti-market bailouts and new wave environmentalism. Yup (C- I am as lucky as Chretien was), you guessed it.

So, when I see pundits squirrelling on the left for 'market share,' I roll my eyes and ask "what have we ever accomplished by tacking off the NDP or left of centre parties? A short history includes Mike Harris (C - Look ma, I'm Premier) Rodney MacDonald (C-Fiddle rhymes with Diddle) Mario Dumont as Leader of the Opposition (ADQ - I have been doing this since 1992, and I am still seen as young!) and lots of other examples. I know, times have an impact as well, and no example can be isolated for just that one issue.

I do know that the space to argue isn't on the left. Because every vote you might pick up there, will cost you two on the right.

Our society is changing - and as new voters enter the pool with the sense that living under a individualistic, unsympathetic government can be ok - the harder it will be in the future to make them come back.

Leadership is about more than having ideas - it is about inspiring others to have them. Right now, I am not inspired to do anything but look for other options.