In the 2011 federal election, The Spectator's editorial board endorsed the Stephen Harper Conservatives based on their financial management track record. But we were critical of their secrecy, lack of respect for democratic institutions and tendency to dismiss even legitimate dissent.

Many things have not changed, like the incumbent government's micro-controlling mandate, its secrecy and disrespect for democratic debate. It holds the record for invoking closure. It literally changed a law to protect the RCMP from charges of wrongdoing. It muzzled scientists. For the second time, it denied a recession was imminent when it was nearly upon us. It ran a campaign based to a large extent on identity politics, marginalizing if not demonizing a small number of Muslim women but, indirectly, the Muslim population in general. It didn't even pay lip service to poverty. It ignored calls for an investigation of thousands of missing and murdered aboriginal women. It tried to tempt voters with economic candy like income splitting that experts confirm would benefit a fraction of the population.

And locally, it ignored repeated pleas for intervention in the U.S. Steel affair, until days before the vote. Its response this week is so transparent, it doesn't warrant response.

But one significant thing has changed — there are credible alternatives. And so we say, while giving the Harper government its due, it is time for a change. But a change to what?

Given our local mandate, The Spectator tends to see things through a Hamilton-centric lens and that's the case with this endorsement.

There is much to like in the platform put forward by Tom Mulcair's NDP. They alone propose national daycare and pharmacare programs. Affordability is an issue, but at least the NDP recognizes the need for federal leadership in these areas. The NDP would also build 10,000 affordable housing units, some of which Hamilton desperately needs. And they would invest up to $100 million to create jobs for youth, and grow the CPP to provide more coverage. They also pledge electoral reform by introducing proportional representation.

The NDP also say they would balance the budget in 2016, and that's where things start to break down. Given their spending promises it seems impossible they could also balance the budget so quickly, and that lack of credibility colours many other areas of the platform. Also, NDP policy would allow Quebec to separate if just 50 per cent of voters plus one cast ballots to separate. Let's not make separation easier than it is currently under the federal Clarity Act, which calls for a clear majority of support.

That brings us to the Justin Trudeau-led Liberals. They promise to run a more collaborative national federation than the Conservatives. They would work with provinces on overall priorities like fighting climate change. They would allow more free votes in Parliament.

They would raise taxes on the wealthiest Canadians and cut taxes by about two per cent for the middle class. They would introduce an income-tested tax free monthly child benefit, which makes sense because wealthy families don't need government support for child care. They, and the NDP, would roll back OAS eligibility from 67 to 65. The Liberals would reduce employment insurance waiting times and premiums, but would redirect the savings into skilled training programs for provinces. And they pledge overdue action to reform and grow the Canada Pension Plan and the way Canadians vote.

The Liberals would spend $1.5 billion over four years on a national youth job strategy. They would increase student grants by 50 per cent a year and delay repayment until grads are earning $25,000 annually.

The Liberals have the best plan for youth unemployment, critical for Hamilton, along with better skills development. They would invest in affordable housing, public transit, climate change and 'smart cities.' They would invest about $5.3 billion a year in provincial and municipal infrastructure, a key for Hamilton.

The Liberals don't claim they can do all this and balance the books right away. They would run deficits of up to $10 billion a year for several years. Deficits are never ideal, but considering that Canada's national economy is something like $2 trillion, most economists say small deficits are tolerable for a limited time.

Overall, the Liberal plan is most honest because it acknowledges there's no free lunch. Timely strategic investment in national priorities — many of which are magnified in Hamilton — isn't free. But investments in infrastructure, job training, job creation and the environment are critically important. These things, along with the Liberals' stated intent to work collaboratively, lead us to conclude a Liberal victory on Monday would be the best outcome, for Canada and for Hamilton.