Parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee has discovered something shocking: the government makes up the rules for appointing political ambassadors as it goes along. This revelation emerged after Lord Mandelson’s appointment was processed through what can only be described as interpretive dance rather than procedure.
The MPs are now demanding veto power over future ambassadorial picks, which is genuinely hilarious coming from an institution that cannot agree on when Parliament sits, how long PMQs should last, or whether the Speaker’s chair is technically a throne. These are people who debate whether a sandwich counts as a meal for subsidy purposes.
What exactly will this veto process look like? Will there be a committee vote? A secret ballot? A trial by TikTok? The report doesn’t say, because Parliament’s own procedures are also being made up as they go along. They’ve just invented a problem and proposed a solution that requires inventing an entirely new procedural framework they’ll immediately ignore.
The real comedy is the premise: that consistency matters. That there exists some platonic ideal of “proper procedure” that Parliament has temporarily strayed from, rather than the obvious truth that British politics is a living improv show where everyone’s making it up and half the audience thinks it’s intentional.
Mandelson got appointed. He’s now ambassador. The process was chaotic. Parliament will demand oversight of the next appointment using a system they haven’t designed yet. Nothing will change except there will now be more meetings about meetings.