Labor will ask voters ‘who will make you better or worse off in next three years?’

The government is standing by Kevin Rudd, albeit with gritted teeth, in the face of calls for him to be replaced as Australia’s ambassador to Washington. But the row is an unhelpful and potentially damaging distraction for a prime minister beset by problems and under the shadow of an approaching election.

Rudd was always set to be controversial if Donald Trump returned, so Anthony Albanese’s appointing him was a gamble.

Moreover, Rudd doesn’t help himself. For example, why didn’t he delete his social media posts graphically disparaging Trump as soon as he was named for the post? Instead, he did so last week, after Trump’s election. His accompanying personal statement announcing the fact just drew fresh attention to the comments, producing a story in the New York Times.

The controversy around Rudd can only intensify with Trump’s naming of Dan Scavino as his deputy chief of staff. Scavino this week posted an hourglass on social media linked to Rudd’s statement.

Although the government is perennially anxious about the risk of some unfortunate fresh “Ruddism”, there is wide agreement he has been effective in building contacts on both sides of US politics.

Those pressing for his replacement are showing scant concern for Australia’s national self-respect. In effect, they are anticipating Trump will bully Australia and advocating we get in first and act the supplicant. That is not what an ally and middle power should do.

Or, in some cases, the attackers just want to damage the Albanese government as the election approaches. The Liberals have backed Rudd, but on Thursday Opposition Leader Peter Dutton was using dog-whistling language.

I want to make sure that we can have an ambassador who can work effectively with the government, whether that’s the US or wherever an ambassador might be appointed.

The general uncertainty of the looming early days of Trump’s presidency adds to Albanese’s challenges as he gets closer to the federal election, the skirmishing for which has already been raging for months.

If, as is likely, Trump moves quickly to install his tariffs regime, the Albanese government will be under pressure to secure an exemption for Australia, as the Turnbull government did during the first Trump presidency.

This might need some difficult direct lobbying by the prime minister, who says he has already discussed trade in his phone call with the president-elect last week.

I pointed out that […] the United States has a trade surplus with Australia. So it’s in the United States’ interest to trade fairly with Australia.

This week, Albanese’s options for timing the election were thrown into relief when Western Australian Premier Roger Cook revealed he had sought advice about the possibility of moving the March 8 (fixed date) WA election, in the event of a clash with the federal poll.

While possible, a March federal election is considered the least likely of Albanese’s options. Not only would there be overlap with a WA campaign, but the government would probably want more time to hang out for a reduction in interest rates.

Those suggesting (or advocating) an April election argue this would avoid the government having to bring down a budget, currently scheduled for March 25. A budget would show deficits into the distant future, they say, which would give ammunition to the opposition.

This point is undermined, however, by the fact that early in the election campaign, the bureaucracy produces the Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Outlook, which is a budget update that contains these figures.

The advantage of a budget is it can give a government a good launchpad.

The third option is for Albanese to wait until May, with the last date May 17 (so the result can be finalised for a July 1 start for the new Senate).

Some in Labor circles believe the prime minister will want to wait as long as possible. On the other hand, others note that when time is running out, it becomes harder for the government to get clear air and it has no flexibility to delay if the unexpected arises.

Albanese this week told journalists the election “will be called April or before” – in other words, he told them nothing.

Meanwhile, the government is announcing a host of things it says it “will” do – but not this term. They amount to election promises. The big one is forgiving one-fifth of people’s HELP debt – that will only be delivered if the government is re-elected.

Next week, parliament sits for its final fortnight of the year, with a big agenda – much of which will be crowded out. A high priority will be given to changing the electoral funding and spending regime, which the government expects to pass before parliament rises for Christmas (although the new provisions would not apply to this election).

Albanese, in South America for the APEC and G20 summits, will miss the first of these weeks. How the government, which sets the parliamentary timetable, had parliament’s sitting coinciding with his absence is a mystery. These final weeks of the year are times of legislative argy bargy and uncertainty.

At home, Treasurer Jim Chalmers, who has been busy with a round of major speeches, will next Wednesday deliver in parliament a statement on the economy.

On his trip, Albanese has multiple bilateral meetings, but of course not the crucial one he needs - with Trump. However, suggestions from the opposition he should fly to the US on his way home were political point-scoring. Just at the moment, the president-elect is busy with organising his new team.

As he tours the country, Dutton, encouraged by the Trump victory, is asking voters – in a version of Trump’s election question – “do you feel better off today than you did when Mr Albanese was first elected?”

Labor, in turn, will try to focus the election on what alternative plans are being presented for the future. Over the coming months it will announce big policies (like the debt forgiveness one) for a second-term agenda.

Labor’s aim is to push back on Dutton’s question with another question: “Who is going to make you better or worse off over the next three years?”