Starmer was aware of the risks of appointing the 'Prince of Darkness' as his man in Washington DC - to an extent

It was a prescient and - as it turned out - incredibly optimistic sign off from Peter Mandelson after eight years as Chancellor of Manchester Metropolitan University.

"I hope I survive in my next job for at least half that period", the Financial Times reported him as saying - with a smile.

As something of a serial sackee from government posts, we know Sir Keir Starmer was, to an extent, aware of the risks of appointing the "Prince of Darkness" as his man in Washington.

Politics latest - follow live

But in his first interview since he gave the ambassador his marching orders, the prime minister said if he had "known then what I know now" then he would not have given him the job.

For many Labour MPs, this will do little to answer questions about the slips in political judgement that led Downing Street down this disastrous alleyway.

Like the rest of the world, Sir Keir Starmer did know of Lord Mandelson's friendship with the paedophile Jeffrey Epstein when he sent him to Washington.

The business secretary spelt out the reasoning for that over the weekend saying that the government judged it "worth the risk".

This is somewhat problematic.

As you now have a government which - after being elected on the promise to restore high standards - appears to be admitting that previous indiscretions can be overlooked if the cause is important enough.

Package that up with other scandals that have resulted in departures - Louise Haigh, Tulip Siddiq, Angela Rayner - and you start to get a stink that becomes hard to shift.

But more than that, the events of the last week again demonstrate an apparent lack of ability in government to see round corners and deal with crises before they start knocking lumps out of the prime minister.

Remember, for many the cardinal sin here was not necessarily the original appointment of Mandelson (while eyebrows were raised at the time, there was nowhere near the scale of outrage we've had in the last week with many career diplomats even agreeing with logic of the choice), but the fact that Sir Keir walked into PMQs and gave the ambassador his full-throated backing when it was becoming clear to many around Westminster that he simply wouldn't be able to stay in post.

The explanation from Downing Street is essentially that a process was playing out, and you shouldn't sack an ambassador based on a media enquiry alone.

But good process doesn't always align with good politics.

Something this barrister-turned-politician may now be finding out the hard way.

(c) Sky News 2025: Starmer was aware of the risks of appointing the 'Prince of Darkness' as his man in Washington DC - to an extent