Livingstone vs cheap embassies

One of the news stories on BBC this weekend is that the embassy of UAE in London has decided to pay the congestion charge.

Red Ken's response to this was:

[BBC:6 April 2006]

"All Londoners will welcome this settlement with the embassy of the UAE.

"Those embassies, such as that of the United States, which flout the laws of this country and misuse diplomatic immunity to evade the charge are enjoying the benefits of reduced congestion but contributing nothing.

"I hope they will now take a leaf from the United Arab Emirates and understand that as the richest and most powerful country in the world they can well afford to respect this country's laws."

Livingston is not a fan of the current US ambassador. Just a week or so back, he had this to say:

[BBC: 28 March 2006]

"It would actually be quite nice if the American ambassador in Britain could pay the charge that everybody else is paying and not actually try and skive out of it like some chiselling little crook."

The American ambassador he is referring to is Mr. Robert Turtle, who got appointed in June of last year.

[The Guardian: June 10, 2005]

The nomination of Mr Tuttle, who owns a car sales group called Tuttle-Click Automotive, comes after nearly a year without a US ambassador at the Court of St James.
[...]
Mr Tuttle and his predecessor, William Farish, are both wealthy private citizens with personal ties to the Bush family. Mr Farish spent three years in the job, but kept a low profile in London.

While I believe it is important that embassies stuff follow the same laws as everyone else, I think the bigger point is being missed here. Why have someone like Mr Tuttle, his only qualifications being a friend and supporter of the current US president, as an ambassador?

For that matter, what's the point of having such a large diplomatic corps? Using technological advances such as video conferencing, there is no reason that public servants from foreign ministries of two different countries can't sort things out directly.

Of course embassies perform a wide variety of functions, including screening visa applicants. But I think that with some planning even these jobs can be eliminated. So why isn't there a debate on this?