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.