Could Peter Mandelson make another comeback as Britain’s next ambassador to the United States?

Who will be our next man – or woman – in Washington? The question has been obsessing the Westminster “bubble”, and some interested parties further afield. Much speculation has centred on Lord (Peter) Mandelson, a man who is close to the current prime minister as well as the last two Labour premiers. His reputation for practising the dark arts goes before him, and he’d be an interesting choice, but some reports suggest that he fancies being the next chancellor of the University of Oxford. Also, he has competition...

Well, aside from Mandelson – a former cabinet minister and EU trade commissioner – we have some other well-qualified “left-leaning” types. David Miliband was the last Labour foreign secretary before the appointment of David Lammy, and is, like Mandelson, something of a Blairite veteran, if not an icon. He’s been busy with the International Rescue Committee, a charity based in Washington DC, so at least he’d not have to move far, and he might like another career change, having half given up on politics when his brother Ed narrowly beat him to secure the Labour leadership in 2010.

Another choice might be Baroness (Cathy) Ashton – a bit more obscure, but no less New Labour than the others. She served as EU foreign affairs commissioner from 2009 to 2014. At least as effective as any of these would be Jonathan Powell, former chief of staff to Tony Blair, who before that served as a professional British diplomat – a role that included a stint in Washington.

In what looks to be a bit of a shabby business, Sir Tim Barrow has reportedly been told he won’t be HM ambassador after all, having been lined up for the role by Rishi Sunak. Barrow is currently serving as UK national security adviser, and was due to leave the post and replace the incumbent Karen Pierce at the end of this year. Barrow has served with distinction in the foreign office since 1986, but the Washington post is regarded as one of the few – Paris being another – in which political or semi-political choices are, by convention, tolerated by the diplomats.

Oh, and it doesn’t seem likely that Nigel Farage, MP for Clacton, will be appointed, despite Donald Trump’s past public enthusiasm for the idea.

When we know the result of the presidential election in November. If Kamala Harris wins, then one of the New Labourites will get the gig; if not, then perhaps a career diplomat.

Not necessarily. Sometimes politicians can get along well with American presidents of a different stripe. One of the most successful ambassadors in the business of “personal diplomacy” was David Ormsby-Gore, a former Tory MP sent by a Tory premier, Harold Macmillan, to be his representative at the “Court of Camelot”, as the Kennedy White House was nicknamed; he was treated more or less as family by the Kennedys.

Another would be John Freeman, a socialist journalist, former editor of the New Statesman, and former Labour MP, who had vilified Richard Nixon as a “disgrace to public life” only to find himself having to deal with Nixon as president after Tricky Dicky’s election win in 1968 (Harold Wilson had expected Nixon to lose when he gave Freeman the job).

At a dinner soon after, Nixon was conciliatory: “Some say there’s a new Nixon. And they wonder if there’s a new Freeman. I would like to think that that’s all behind us. After all, he’s the new diplomat and I’m the new statesman, trying to do our best for peace in the world.” The pair got along fine thereafter. (Miliband, it’s worth noting, has been the rudest about the thin-skinned Trump in the past.)

It can do, if only because it can go spectacularly wrong. No one wants to see a rerun of what happened in 2019, when the then ambassador Kim Darroch had to resign. Through no fault of Darroch, private communications were leaked that described President Trump as “inept and insecure” and his administration as “dysfunctional”. Trump, predictably, called Darroch a “stupid guy” and a “pompous fool”. The then PM, Boris Johnson, soon moved Darroch out.

Four things, all a bit tricky to say the least, partly depending on whether it is to be President Trump or President Harris. First, keeping America firmly committed to the Atlantic Alliance and Nato. Second, securing a US-UK free trade agreement – a long shot at best, given the protectionist grip on all parties in the US. Third, maintaining privileged access to US intelligence and support for the not-quite-independent British nuclear deterrent. Fourth, keeping America on side and committed to the Northern Ireland peace process.

The rest is warm words washed down with chilled champagne.