O/T - I like the new look even if a little too bright for my eyes.

The small c-conservatives who are complaining would perhaps prefer to be in opposition, from where they could expound on the principles they hold so dear.

“It is often easier to fight for principles than to live up to them.” Adlai Stevenson or Alfred Adler ?
I.e., the reality of a situation, in this case the demands made upon the government by its citizenry, means that despite all the well-intentioned principles politicians may have they sometimes have to compromise due to circumstances.

And consider this as well:
"I shall argue that strong men, conversely, know when to compromise and that all principles can be compromised to serve a greater principle." Andrew Carnegie

Well, historically the Libs have not only spent more, and in terms of taxes (as opposed to say social programs and culture) they've also cut more. Now since it seems the only area where the Cons are beating them is in # promises broken, I fail to see any point in voting for them.

Like it or not, many of the small-c conservatives who, as you say, "wanted a government in Ottawa that would address judicial activism, turn the Senate upside down, introduce free-market principles for health care delivery [etc.]" were the same ones who Harper originally courted both among party members and among the general populace. If he had told us all he WOULDN'T be doing these things it would be another issue. Instead, we must realize that 'a promise is a promise is a promise' and that a failure to keep them is to break them, to go back on one's word, and to violate an important ethical principle.

If they had failed as a result of a free vote, he could say it was beyond his control, and may even be forgivable. Instead, it wasn't that he tried and failed, it was that Harper didn't even try at all.

" ... Harper didn't even try at all ..."
Sorry, but you're wrong. There are some issues that some small c-conservatives consider outstanding (as in not achieved), but Mr. Harper has been more than faithful to his party's policy positions. Some were achieved, some not. That's where a reality dose comes in. Some promises can and have been kept, others not because of circumstances.
Despite the portrayal of Harper as the ultimate control-freak, there are some things that are beyond even his control.

1. The abortion issue was settled by the delegates who attended the Conservatives’ March 2005 convention held in Montreal:
http://davidakin.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2005/3/24/473298.html#p93
“P-93: Abortion Legislation
It is moved that a new clause be added in Section I) as follows:
Abortion Legislation
A Conservative government will not support any legislation to regulate abortion."

2a. Judicial activism: despite much opposition, the Conservative government was able to bring in some measures to correct the imbalance in judiciary appointments.
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=b50eeb88-593a-4063-a3d6-bcb4cc913fce
“Judges lash out at PM's comments
Say independence of judiciary 'in peril'
Janice Tibbetts, The Ottawa Citizen
Published: Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin and a contingent of other senior judges took a swipe yesterday at the Conservative government by asserting that the independence of the judiciary is "in peril" and that it must be free to make rulings "irrespective of political or ideological considerations."
The rebuke from the Canadian Judicial Council has once again thrust judges into a public battle with the government. It was delivered amid a fierce debate fuelled last week by Prime Minister Stephen Harper's blunt acknowledgment that he wants judges who are tough on crime. ...
The government, breaking a tradition of consulting with the judiciary, recently changed the makeup of judicial advisory committees that exist in each province to screen candidates for the 1,100-member federal bench.
The government now holds the balance of power in that the minister of justice's appointees to the panels have the majority of votes.”

2b. Vetting of nominees to the Supreme Court: the Conservatives introduced a more transparent system for vetting nominees.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/supremecourt/nominees.html
“ … [Justice Marshall] Rothstein was on a short list of Supreme Court nominees put together for the government of Paul Martin before the Jan. 23, 2006, federal election. The opposition parties had some input in that list. Rothstein is the first Supreme Court nominee to face questions from a Commons committee. Days before proposing Rothstein as the newest Supreme Court justice, Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced that nominees to the high court would face three hours of televised questioning by an all-party committee.

3. Senate reform: the Conservatives introduced a couple of bills to reform the Senate, but their minority position especially in the Senate has prevented the passage of those bills.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Senate#Recent_developments
" ... Harper has also promised further reforms beyond electing senators, including limits on how long each senator may sit.[15] To that effect, on May 30, 2006, the government introduced Bill S-4 in the Senate, which would amend the Constitution Act, 1867 to limit the term of a newly appointed senator to eight years. It also provides that current senators may serve out their term to age 75. While appearing before a Senate committee, Harper announced that in the fall of 2006, the government would introduce a bill to allow Canadians to elect senators.[16] This bill was announced on December 13, 2006.[17] S-4 died at the end of the first parliamentary session, but was reintroduced with modifications as C-19 in the second session.[18]
The federal government also introduced Bill C-43 for "the consultation of the electors... in relation to the appointment of senators".[17] "Pending the pursuit of a constitutional amendment... to provide for a means of direct election" the elected candidates will not automatically become senators; they will be presented to the prime minister who retains the choice of whom to recommend to be appointed senator. According to the bill, these "consultations" should be held together with federal or provincial legislative elections (ss. 12–13).[19] The bill makes no changes in the distribution of seats among the provinces. The bill died at the end of the first parliamentary session, but was reintroduced in the second as Bill C-20.[20] ..."

4. Another contentious issue for some social conservatives, SSM, was laid to rest by a free vote from the Conservatives. Stephane Dion had first announced the Liberal vote would be whipped, but because of grumbling among his caucus, the Liberal vote was finally a free one:
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20061207/samesexmarriage_vote_061207/20061207?hub=TopStories
"Harper declares same-sex marriage issue closed
Updated Thu. Dec. 7 2006 11:21 PM ET
CTV.ca News Staff
Prime Minister Stephen Harper said he will respect today's vote against revisiting debate on same-sex marriage, and considers the matter closed.
MPs voted 175-123 on Thursday against a Conservative motion calling for the government to introduce legislation restoring the traditional definition of marriage. … "