Why on earth was Peter Mandelson appointed in the first place?

The decision to appoint Lord Peter Mandelson as the UK ambassador to Washington was always a mistake. It showed that Keir Starmer wasn't satisfied with any of the potential candidates from within the Foreign Office. The Washington job is the pinnacle appointment for anyone serving as a diplomat and normally goes to someone who has worked his or her way up the diplomatic ladder. Appointing a politician or former politician is always going to be risky and is seen as one in the eye for the senior diplomats who have proved their worth at home and broad. Mandelson has been axed for the increasingly embarrassing revelations about his relationship with the late Jeffrey Epstein, convicted girl sex trafficker. But his appointment in the first place demonstrated unwise judgment by the prime minister. Mandelson's predecessor, Karen Pierce, excelled as ambassador. She was a career diplomat. Now the Foreign Office is in a bad way. Redundancy notices are flying around. Key people holding top director jobs are being dismissed or leaving. The head of the Foreign Office, Sir Oliver Robbins, isn't a career deiplomat but a favoured Downing Street figure after he served as the main Brexit adviser. Too many good people in the Foreign Office are leaving. Now, all the rumours are that Starmer will double-up on his mistake with Mandelson by replacing him with another politician, such as George Osborne, rather than a diplomat who has served in key capitals, such as Moscow or Beijing or Paris. Big mistake!