Now that the dust is finally beginning to settle after the US Presidential election in November, attention is turning to the various subplots emerging from the aftermath of the vote.
While much of the commentariat has been busily reporting who will and won’t be in President-elect Trump’s top team, there is also speculation about who Sir Keir Starmer will now appoint as the next British ambassador to the US. After all, whoever takes up that role — probably the most prestigious ambassadorship going in the UK’s diplomatic network — will be the country’s day-to-day representative to the incoming President. Speculation in the press has come to coalesce around the potential appointment of Peter Mandelson, and this has been spurred on by the fact that neither Lord Mandleson himself nor Downing Street have quashed the reports.
Whoever ultimately gets the job, it’s worth reflecting on the role of ambassadors more widely as we look to appoint our next one to a Trump-led USA. The position of a UK ambassador exemplifies a duality in the civil service: a role where the individual must navigate the formal responsibilities of representing the Crown whilst simultaneously advocating for a government’s policies in international settings. This dual function demands both adherence to protocol and neutrality, but also the flexibility to manage complex and potentially erratic political personalities. It is not an easy task. So, how are ambassadors in the UK appointed, and what of the ambiguous constitutional space they occupy?
The appointment of ambassadors
Historically, the decision on who to appoint as an ambassador was a power that belonged to the monarch, as part of the royal prerogative. Over time, however, like many of the powers under the royal prerogative, this authority came to be gradually diminished as government and Parliament’s powers were strengthened in turn. By the mid-nineteenth century, the Crown was essentially bound by constitutional convention to act on the advice of the government when it came to ambassadorial appointments.
That means that, nowadays, high-ranking diplomatic appointments are essentially made by the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary. The monarch is still involved, but their role is merely ceremonial — basically rubber-stamping the names recommended to them.
In terms of this process, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCDO) will typically maintain a pool of potential candidates for ambassadorship positions that they can present to the Foreign Secretary, who will then pass their thoughts to the Prime Minister. Conventionally, the pool comprises senior civil servants with extensive diplomatic experience, often with at least three or four postings under their belt in different regions of the world. Dame Karen Pierce, who is the current British ambassador to the US, is a good example of this, having served previously in diplomatic postings from Japan to Afghanistan.
There is no statutory obligation, however, that the Foreign Secretary and Prime Minister make appointments from this shortlist. In the case of the US ambassadorship, in fact there is ample precedent of political appointees being selected above career civil servants.
For example, David Ormsby-Gore, a former Conservative minister, held the Washington ambassadorship from 1961 to 1965, having been appointed by Harold Macmillan. (Ormsby-Gore’s relationship with the Kennedy family was so strong that he even proposed marriage to Jackie Kennedy after her husband’s assassination. She turned him down.) So too, in 1977, when Labour Prime Minister James Callaghan appointed his son-in-law, Peter Jay, as ambassador to the US. Jay was forty years old at the time and a career journalist who had never served in a diplomatic position before. Whatever one’s view of Mandelson, therefore, more blatant examples of appointments made on the basis of cosy political patronage are available to hand.
The effect of political patronage in the appointment process
The increasing pattern of Prime Ministers making political appointments to high-ranking official roles smacks of executive overreach. After all, even if the monarch’s role in the appointment of an ambassador is only ceremonial, these topmost diplomats are still ultimately serving the Crown. Though an ambassador acts as the ‘eyes and ears’ of the UK in a foreign nation, and will be expected to network politically and report back to the Prime Minister, they should be able to do so whilst operating under the principle of neutrality that all civil servants in the UK are bound by.
In addition, since ambassadorial appointments are not subject to parliamentary approval or scrutiny, the power over who is and isn’t appointed essentially lies squarely with the Foreign Secretary and Prime Minister. The lack of scrutiny in this regard is concerning, especially when the reasoning for why a particular candidate has been appointed above a more experienced individual is rarely made public. Historically, when the monarch’s powers were greater, they might have disagreed with a name presented to them by the Prime Minister, acting as a constitutional check and balance. That safeguard simply doesn’t exist now.
The cumulative effect of these developments is that, in effect, the constitutional power now lies firmly with the Prime Minister and that power is subject to little scrutiny or review. One only needs to look at the previous government’s dishing out of government contracts during the covid-19 crisis to see how damaging cronyism and preferential treatment can be to the public good. In the case of the appointment of ambassadors, though, political patronage can proceed unchecked, and, if we aren’t careful, unremarked upon. This in turn sends the message that political loyalty is more important than proven experience and expertise in a nominal meritocracy — hardly the image of modern Britain we wish to present abroad.
To rectify this, ambassadors should be appointed based on a merit-based selection framework that should be made publicly available. Requiring candidates to meet clear and published criteria would improve transparency over high-ranking appointments and more clearly demonstrate the fit of a candidate to a position. As part of this criteria, it would not be unreasonable to expect candidates to be able to demonstrate a suitability to the country or geography in question, be it through proven years of experience in the region, or knowledge of a particular language or dialect. To that end, those on the outside of government should not be precluded from these positions — but they and the government must be able to point to a publicly-available record that clearly shows why they are right for the job. Ambassadors do report to the FCDO on their performance against government objectives, and are subject to annual performance reviews, but attendance at regular select committee hearings might be another way of improving transparency over ambassadorships whilst in the job. Of course, there would be a fine balancing act here between protecting the public interest and redacting information that may risk national security.
What will be required of the next British ambassador to the US?
Constitutional questions aside, whoever the Prime Minister appoints as the next ambassador to the US will face a difficult task. The incoming candidate will quickly need to square the President-elect’s bolshy isolationist stance on geopolitics with the UK’s post-Brexit need to deepen our relationship with the US and the rest of the world.
Successive Prime Ministers have consistently reiterated UK support for Ukraine in its war against Russia, which is in marked contrast to Trump, who seems keen to end the war in Europe even if the terms of peace are not in favour of Ukraine. On China, too, Trump has taken a hawkish position, proposing tariffs against Beijing to stem the flow of cheap Chinese imports into the US economy. The new ambassador will need to avoid interfering with the UK’s own interests in improving its relationship with China, whilst also respecting the bullish new position of the US. Lastly, on trade, the new ambassador will need to negotiate a new trade deal with the US, while at the same time the Government seeks closer ties with the EU. In all of these objectives, the incoming ambassador will need to maintain impartiality while contending with Trump’s unpredictable mood swings.
In my view, the appointment of Lord Mandelson as the British ambassador to the US would be a risky choice. Not long ago, Trump’s circle accused Keir Starmer’s government of interfering in the US election in aid of the Harris-Walz campaign. If Mandelson is appointed, his association with the New Labour machine would undoubtedly be confirmation to Trump that the UK government could not be trusted. A more experienced career civil servant as ambassador wouldn’t risk this same association, though they would have their own issues with winning over a President-elect who has been voted in on a platform of smashing cosy establishment orthodoxy. For whoever does get appointed as ambassador in the coming weeks, presenting themselves and the UK as a reliable partner will be a significant challenge. That may be something that even Mandelson’s much-vaunted expertise in the political dark arts will struggle to overcome.
Jai Jethwa.
Jai Jethwa holds a BA in Politics from the University of York. He has worked as a public affairs consultant and in the BBC’s central press office, as well as in the civil service in the Cabinet Office and the Department for Transport.
The Constitution Society is committed to the promotion of informed debate and is politically impartial. Any views expressed in this article are the personal views of the author and not those of The Constitution Society.