It's too far and there's not a huge consumer base. Plus the service will be below par if they start next month.
Possibly -- but this route is worth starting from an incubation perspective. Facilitating future purchase of the subdivisions for future higher rail speeds. That's the big prize.
However, London-Kitchener commute via GO should actually competes okay with peak-period driving, and they should be able to still call this pilot a success even without Toronto.
From a progressive viewpoint, the long-term prize is Ontario high speed rail, and rewarding Kitchener for their transit upgrades. Kitchener GO is becoming a transit hub.
So there's something in it for Cons and Libs. Transit expansions are inherently political but the venn diagram of London-Kitchener-Toronto GO overlaps both Cons & Libs & NDP long-term desires.
As I have long asserted, the creation of nominally-arms-length Metrolinx is a boon-in-disguise for transit politics. That's why Transit City still survived its cancellation, how Hamilton LRT survived, and that's why we're no longer burying subways already under construction (Eglinton subway construction cancellation in the 90s -- they actually filled in the tunnel they had started at the time). Cons does one thing, and Libs does another, but a route still gets upgraded. Before Metrolinx, transit projects were much more glacial -- the transit Dark Ages is quite notable for the few decades prior to Metrolinx's current ongoing expansions. It's imperfect and semi-inefficient but there's a lot less permanent-cancellations roulette like the Queen St subway over 100 years ago (1911 underground streetcar proposal), now finally being built with Ontario Line.
It's ugly, but alternatives are worse for Canada 2050 zero-carbon aspirations.
Cons did Libs an apparent tiny favour (indirectly) towards Canada 2050.
Now Libs have to spend bigger on upgrades to speed up GO between Kitchener-Union, now that line is extended to London by Cons. We'll see HFR and/or HSR from triparte fundings, eventually.