By Dan Hodges,Editor

Copyright dailymail

So, what changed? Twenty-four hours ago, Keir Starmer stood at the House of Commons Despatch Box and sternly insisted, ‘The ambassador has repeatedly expressed his deep regret for his association with Epstein, and he is right to do so.

‘I have confidence in him and he is playing an important role in the UK-US relationship.’

For the best part of a day, as revelation after new revelation exposed the sordid nature of Peter Mandelson’s relationship with convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein – and its potentially devastating impact on relations with Washington – Keir Starmer stood by his man.

Minsters were dispatched to tell the nation nothing had changed. Mandelson had expressed sufficient contrition and would be remaining in his post.

And then, suddenly, he was gone. The Prime Minister had ‘moved at pace’, claimed Labour MP Andy McDonald to hysterical laughter from the Tory benches.

But the Prime Minister did not move at pace. Rather, he clung to his toxic ambassador like a child clinging to its mother’s apron-strings until political gravity finally wrenched them apart.

Until now, this tawdry saga has focused on Mandelson and his bizarre obsession with the child-abuser he professed to love.

But now he has gone, it’s Keir Starmer who stands exposed. The Prime Minister has lost his human shield.

First, the PM has to account for his staggering lack of political judgment.

On Tuesday, Peter Mandelson admitted to the world there were fresh revelations to come about Epstein. But, apparently without knowing what they were or even enquiring about them, Sir Keir stood up in the House of Commons chamber and proffered his unequivocal support.

Even after those new revelations emerged, Starmer seemed to be labouring under the illusion he could still defend him.

The second charge against the Prime Minister relates to his basic competence – or lack of it.

According to a statement issued by the Foreign Office, ‘the emails show that the depth and extent of Peter Mandelson’s relationship with Jefferey Epstein is materially different from that known at the time.’

But how? Starmer did not hand-pick Mandelson to be his gardener or valet. He appointed him to one of the most sensitive positions in the British diplomatic service.

As Starmer was at pains to point out in the House of Commons, Mandelson – as Washington Ambassador – had a vital role in managing the vital strategic partnership between the United Kingdom and the United States of America.

So, before he was selected for the post, Mandelson would have gone through one of the most vigorous processes of vetting imaginable.

How were these emails missed? Mandelson’s relationship with Epstein was already a matter of public record.

How was the true nature of his relationship with Epstein overlooked?

When Starmer first opted to appoint Mandelson, did he genuinely show no curiosity over possible skeletons lurking in his closet that could embarrass the government and our most significant international ally?

Which brings us neatly to the questions that now must be raised about Keir Starmer’s own integrity and probity.

Before his election, Sir Keir made much of how he would bring a new piety into the nation’s politics. Unlike the sleazy Tories, he would demand the highest possible standards from his Ministers and officials. So why did he fight tooth and nail to defend Peter Mandelson?

Why did he choose him in the first place? We now know the Cabinet Office had already raised concerns about the Mandelson/Epstein relationship.

We know, too, that Lord Glassman, who was asked to produce a report for Downing Street following meetings with Trump advisers and allies, specifically warned that the Epstein relationship was so problematic, Mandelson should not be appointed.

And now we know the true extent of Mandelson’s contact with a serial sex trafficker and paedophile.

Was Starmer really so ignorant? Was this former Director of Public Prosecutions honestly unaware of the scandal sitting right under his nose?

Or is the truth this: that Starmer wanted Mandelson – with that Machiavellian guile – to be his sherpa in Washington and adopted a ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ approach to his problematic past.

There is one final question thrown up by the scandal. Which is whether the Prime Minister’s chronic mismanagement of the whole affair shows he is no longer fit to be Prime Minister at all.

In the minutes following the news that Mandelson was departing, No10 attempted to spin the idea that he had not merely resigned, but had been sacked.

But Starmer did not sack him in any meaningful way.

The truth is that the ambassador was forced out by the wave of revulsion felt by Starmer’s own MPs and ministers at the shameless way their leader was trying to defend the indefensible.

As one MP told me, ‘it was basically a question of whether Peter went or Keir went’.

Even sacrificing Mandelson might not be enough to save Sir Keir’s skin. Being in the House of Commons over the past, febrile, 72 hours, an end-of-days mood has descended that I last felt in the final weeks of the Boris and Truss administrations.

Labour’s Deputy Leadership contest has become a proxy confidence vote on Starmer’s leadership. And judging from the number of MPs who have endorsed Lucy Powell, seen by many as a stalking horse for her friend Andy Burnham – the popular Mayor of Greater Manchester – it’s a confidence vote the PM is losing.

Peter Mandelson has finally gone. But I’m not sure he will be the last major casualty of the Epstein affair.