Alberta Liberals fail to inspire, plan to conspire.
Sunday, May 16, 2010 at 7:26PM My whole life, Chrysler has struggled under a mediocre brand, constant quality issues and a failure to innovate meaningfully. GM, not much better, has suffered under it's own bureacratic weight, lack of productivity, and perhaps even worse innovation.
No surprise, both these companies required major government bailouts, and are still trying to sell the same vehicles to the public. Now imagine this.
General Motors and Chrysler decide to "co-operate" in an effort to steal more market share from other competitors. But instead of a merger, they are simply going to agree not to compete with each other in strategic markets, or perhaps they would co-operate in speaking out against their combined competitors.
So keeping this anology in perspective, ask yourself how the customer receives greater value from either of these companies? Do the cars get better for the customer? Will they be able to change the perceived needs and wants of the customer, by offering LESS CHOICE? Of course not. Frankly, they would be conspiring to SCREW the customer, or at very least the SYSTEM, by playing games with the market instead of innovating, and adding more desired products for their customers.
Of course in the world of industry, there is no way in the world this would work. Firstly it would be against the law, secondly it would not grow the market share for either company, as customers will just laugh in the face of the conspirators, step around them and buy what they want.
Now, imagine we were talking about political parties, in a first-past-the-post election. You could argue that then things are different. That vote-splitting would be reduced and the conspirators could come out ahead.
Do the electorate get a better product? Or is it simply the best way to keep your failing brand from really innovating? We know the obvious answers to these questions, and yet the old-school win at all costs mentality of people losing grip on power, makes the self-serving option seem to make sense. But at what long-term cost?
To be clear, I am not talking abour a merger of the parties, which in my opinion would have some benefits. But that would require coming from two completely different locations on the political spectrum and trying to appease the grassroots of each. So a merger MIGHT create a better product (assuming moderate policies) for the customer, but the special influencers of the NDP (Union friendly and anti-business left wingers), and the smarter-than-the-average-Albertan egos of the Liberal Leadership, would never get this done.
So, in my personal opinion, it's simply old-school politics and a bailout of those who have failed to inspire Albertans. Me, I'll look for a new mode of transportation, built to function in a 2010 political economy.
ABLEG, Alberta Liberal Party, Alberta NDP in Alberta 
