Slowly but surely, I feel myself moving from happy to uncomfortable to annoyed with our squeaky clean new government.

Not only is it hard to reconcile the ambitious pronouncements of William Hague for a "clear, focused and effective" foreign policy with the major cuts now looming for the FCO as well as other parts of our overseas effort.

Now we get this curious performance by PM David Cameron, talking to business leaders about HM Ambassadors. He said he had told them they could only justify their "plush" residences if they acted as agents for British business abroad.

The Indy then lists some undoubtedly smart Residences, as if to show just how idle and pampered those all top diplomatic folk are.

Sigh.

First, it is obvious that Ambassadors act as agents for British business overseas. But the extent they do that in real life – and on paper for Treasury target purposes – ebbs and flows.

Thus Whitehall fashion sometimes creates Priority Sectors, or Priority Markets. Embassy and Ambassadorial time is then instructed to be directed hard at those sectors/markets and not others.

The hapless Ambassadors even have to fill in consultancy-like forms identifying how much time they spend on ‘commercial work’. When I went to Warsaw I increased that percentage to some 15%. Then I was told by my UKTI team that I had to reduce that % on paper, regardless of what I in fact did in real life, so that that could be presented as a ‘cut’ for Treasury purposes.

Over my time in Warsaw (Poland being one of the most dynamic EU markets), UKTI reduced the UK commercial contingent from four UK-based to a puny one. Then they got annoyed when I rehashed some document they were preparing for MPs who had questioned this policy to say that UKTI respources in Warsaw had been cut.

"That sort of language is misleading – resources have been reallocated and reprioritised…" I was huffily told.

"Piffle," said I, "That is a serious cut by any standards. Why not brief Ministers to tell MPs that they have made such cuts in Warsaw and elsewhere, since presumably Ministers support and indeed are proud of their own policy?"

Deathly hush.

So, in short, Ambassadors of course act as agents for British business and are keen to do so. But it is the dishonesty and fickleness of successive Governments back in Whitehall which is the top ‘risk factor’ in doing that well – and consistently.

NB this too.

One special reason why senior UK business people value Embassy support is the fact that Embassies can access top local decision-makers and opinion-formers. One way to do that skilfully is via discreet and deft private entertaining, which is why British Ambassadors have these (normally) good and well located residences.

In my time in Sarajevo, Belgrade and Warsaw I personally hosted past, current and future Presidents, Prime Ministers, Foreign Ministers and hundreds of other top local personalities. That allowed me to have the contacts needed to help business (and indeed members of the public) when they really had a problem or needed solid deep advice.

If we downgrade the top end of our overseas work, we send a clear signal to host countries:

We don’t take ourselves seriously, so there’s no reason why you should take us seriously either!

Put it this way.

Imagine Japan or Germany or Brazil or Nigeria owned a town-house Ambassadorial residence at No 12 Downing Street. Do we think that they would regard that as a … problem?!?

I thought that the whole point of voting Conservative was to end the sort of neurotic passive/aggressive attitude towards national excellence in our diplomacy, which Labour did so much to create.

Silly me?