Thats because Labor has a totaly different plan for the country: a Republic. I explain it here:
http://polanimal.it.net.au/viewtopic.php?t=6620

Gadget
you write in the above linked post that:

Labor is in effect, proselytising a new Utopian labour regime, to be run in conjunction with, and overseen by both the Government, and the omnipresent Union movement, headed up by the ACTU.

If Labor is elected this year, it may prove true that Australia will be converted to a Republic ‘built’ in Labor’s image. There will be no effective state or federal political opposition, and in the words of Horne ‘We simply cannot imagine what that new way would be’, or what it will do. And for the first time in our history, we will be overseen by a one-party government.
Your argument does not take into account the commitment to a neo-liberal mode of governance through the market.

Does not Rudd stand in the tradition of the Hawke/Keating economic reforms and an open competitive economy?

Thanks for the response Gary.

My post in Polianimal was merely to disclose what i beleive the situation to be with Labor, and what seems to me to be a looming Republic 'built' by them. I would argue that modern economics are a sector of overall society, as is social wellbeing, sovereignty and various other 'institutional' arrangements that make up this here civil society.

True, the economic sector could be considered a tool, one that otherwise might -if it were alone the one great national power- be the controlling factor of said society. Yet there is more to Aus than simply market controls.

Therefore, Labors grand plan, is largely more responsible (read blameful) for societal conditions presently -i argue- than are the Libs. So, if Labor gets the Commonwealth, as I alledge, we will see what I have stated, i am sure.

Not to mention market controls, as you pointed to.

Gadget,
I presume you must mean Hawke and Keating since this was the last time federal Labor was in power. This was when Labor's grand plan could be seen as the cause of bad societal conditions.

That was was about market reforms throwing people in protected industries out of work.

Is that what you mean?

No, I meant as i said, that Labor intends very much this time to go ahead with the conversion. I dont have the expert ability of a bureaucrat to argue the finer points of economics without plunging myself into the danger zone of concerted study.

As i said, there are more sectors to societal control than the economic one; the Church for one has been in the past a grand controller.

No, what we face soon is however, not of the church. Despite Rudds 'Christian Socialism' pronouncement.

Reunionification, with all its controls, is what we face.

Gadget,
The Australian Financial Review agrees with you. Saturday's editorial states:

That means we cannot be sure Labor's plan to abolish Work Choices and bring the unions back to centre stage wouldn't threaten the jobs boom. Labor insists it would not lead to inflationary and anti-competitive patttern bargaining. But what unions want is the opposite of the dynamic competition in which innovation thrives.

I'm not convinced by the argument. Rudd is too much a neo-liberal to let unions rule the show.