Readers slam ‘old boys’ club’ for sidelining Dame Karen Pierce in favour of Peter Mandelson

Independent readers responding to Eleanor Mills’ article on Dame Karen Pierce were scathing about her removal as UK ambassador to Washington, with many describing it as a needless and damaging decision that epitomises the persistence of an “old boys’ club” at the top of government.

Pierce’s term in Washington ended just before Donald Trump entered the White House in early 2025, with Sir Keir Starmer appointing Peter Mandelson to serve as the key link between the prime minister and Trump’s incoming administration at a critical moment for US-UK diplomacy.

After Mills set out how Pierce was already excelling in the role – widely respected in Washington and praised for her ability to handle Trump – readers questioned why a successful career diplomat was replaced at such a critical moment.

Many commenters focused on what they saw as a familiar pattern: a highly competent woman in her sixties being edged out in favour of a well-connected man. For some, the episode crystallised broader concerns about gendered ageism, cronyism and the way experienced women are sidelined just as their careers should be peaking.

Others turned their fire on Mandelson’s appointment itself, highlighting his controversial past and known links to Jeffrey Epstein. Readers repeatedly asked why someone with such baggage was chosen over a diplomat with decades of service and an unblemished record.

Overall, our community agreed with Mills that the Mandelson fallout is a self-inflicted wound for Sir Keir Starmer – one that raises uncomfortable questions about judgement, ethics and who really gets valued in the corridors of power.

Here’s what you had to say:

The appointment of Mandelson was scandalous – the act of a weak leader with poor or zero political judgement and a very defective moral compass (to say nothing of the way he has blithely pivoted away from any pretence of social democracy).

Replacing the incumbent ambassador with Mandelson makes total nonsense of the justification heard in some quarters that he was the right man to handle Trump. As a result of the appointment, an utterly unprincipled individual in a key post seems to have handed over confidential information, almost certainly in breach of the Official Secrets Acts and possibly enough to constitute treason (I hope the police inquiry will dig deep). I wonder what he hoped to get in return. Was he being bribed? Or blackmailed?

Danilov

She was 66, which is nothing in modern terms, especially for a woman. Judges now serve until 75. Trump is 79 and has been allowed to continue as US President despite being obviously both emotionally unstable and with very rapidly declining mental powers. Biden turned 80 while in office. UK Members of Parliament stagger on for as long as they can find their way, at least occasionally, to the House of Commons. For ordinary members of the UK public, the retirement age has been pushed up and will likely be pushed further up. Whatever is ‘usual’, if someone is in post, in full possession of their faculties and doing a great job under difficult circumstances and even, it seems, managing to enjoy it, a Prime Minister with any sense would beg her to stay on and ensure that the powers that be in the Diplomatic Service facilitated this.

lynnherron

Great article and an unfortunate trend that continues.

My view from the USA, though, is that there may have been some other, entirely different rationale at play in this situation. The Epstein files have shown us that Trump has very deliberately surrounded himself with other people who had close, questionable relationships with Epstein. I do not know why Trump wants those types around, but maybe someone in your government did and provided Mandelson. To her credit, obviously, Pierce did not fit the bill.

Matt

As well as being a woman, Pierce is also a Dame – so her accomplishments and talents have clearly been very publicly spotted and acknowledged. She should be reinstated because she was good at her job, and for no other reason.

Dame Pierce was pushed aside because Starmer has poor judgement, a poor grasp of morals, is deeply selective with who he takes advice from, does not care or understand the optics, and clearly had a worrying fascination with Mandelson. He then seemingly tried to withhold all this from Parliament, and it took another country’s government to bring all this to light.

That is what we should be talking about.

SteerCalmer

You can look where you like right now – it is ‘men in high places’ who seem to see themselves as being all-powerful and above the law that are dominating the headlines and threatening peace and well-being for everyone else. Where to start?

Putin is probably a good place to start – seen any women in his entourage? Netanyahu – women in any significant position around him are also sadly missing. Then we come to Iran, where women are virtually seen as non-persons as far as Iran’s rulers are concerned. You could say they are considered to be worthless.

In the UK, it is well known that ‘old boys’ clubs’ lead to ‘the jobs’. A misstep by a woman and she is out fast, if she gets in – unfortunately, the same does not apply to men. Johnson was another. People are prepared to support and vote for Farage, who is not interested in governing; his sole focus is on self-enrichment and empowerment. That he is likely to be ousted after one disastrous term as PM, having sunk the country further, will not bother him because, like Trump, his own personal wealth will have multiplied during that time.

Starmer seems to be out to prove daily that his judgement is seriously lacking. Appointing Mandelson with his track record and known association with Epstein is mind-boggling when there was someone more than capable in the post – a woman – who could have carried on without scandal or embarrassment to the country.

Then there are the Royals who thought they were above the law.

Will any of those seriously implicated in the Epstein affair be brought to justice?

Seems increasingly unlikely. It is not even certain Mandelson will be prosecuted, despite his revelations that could be deemed detrimental to the UK.

What a mess.

Ambigirls

One of my daughters works for a large international company. A few years ago she told me that she would be giving a talk at some meeting that would deal with, among other things, how women could advance in the company just as well as men could. I told her how happy I was to see that she was so high up in the company as to be assigned the talk, and she said something like, “No Dad, it just shows how they had to reach as far down as my relatively low level before they could find a woman.”

soccerdad

The appointment of Mandelson was only ever a political stunt and displayed the shallowness of thinking by our government; in this case, swapping a valuable asset of the nation in favour of a failed politician who, like Blair, always seems to pop up when you least expect it. Let us hope, in the case of Pierce, that she is returned to her rightful place with a grovelling apology, but I will not hold my breath with Starmer at the helm.

RichardHalstead

Given Mandelson’s history, he was always an unusual choice. I have not seen a timeline of his known indiscretions, but it may well exceed the permissible length of an Indy comment. I do wonder if the government looked at Mandelson and thought maybe he is the one person éminence grise and slippery enough to be able to curry favour with Trump – something that the UK government desperately wanted post-Brexit. An even more tangled problem would be if it turned out that the US let it be known that they would like Mandelson. If so, did they ask for him because he is ‘their kind of man’, or even more tin-hat, because Trump knew that one day soon Epstein would explode, leaving egg all over, from Trump’s perspective, a hard-left UK government?

fistfulloffishes

Of course, Labour has previous here.

Peter Jay appointed by his father-in-law to DC, and Boateng appointed to Pretoria. Neither ended well: ridicule for the former appointment and bullying allegations against Boateng.

The moral of this sordid episode is simple: appoint the trained diplomats.

John1

Some of the comments have been edited for this article for brevity and clarity.

Want to share your views? Simply register your details below. Once registered, you can comment on the day’s top stories for a chance to be featured. Alternatively, click ‘log in’ or ‘register’ in the top right corner to sign in or sign up.

Make sure you adhere to our community guidelines, which can be found here. For a full guide on how to comment, click here.