Peter Mandelson has left the Labour party, but the questions for Starmer are just beginning, writes Natasha Clark

And it is the word "de-escalate" that appears on a beautiful Emma Bridgewater mug belonging to him, in today's Times interview photographs.

His bookshelf features similarly fitting tomes including 'The Escape Artist' and 'False Alarm'.

On Sunday evening, despite serving, shaping and benefiting from the Labour Party for his entire life, he has now been forced to cut them adrift, in his words, to save them from "further embarrassment".

But further embarrassment is near-certain to come for the former business secretary, as another tranche of Epstein files has been released by the US Department of Justice.

They appear to show that the former ambassador to the US passed confidential emails from No10 aides to Epstein, when he was serving in Government as business secretary.

The Met police are now looking at whether to open an investigation into alleged misconduct in public office, though the bar for this is said to be very high.

Yet, anger from MPs on all sides of the political spectrum over Lord Mandelson is high.

This is not because of the release of new emails, what they say, or that the pair had a relationship, but more because of what Mandelson's appointment as US ambassador says about the prime minister's judgment.

Much of what we know about the friendship between Epstein and Lord Mandelson was already known at the time of this appointment.

Sir Keir chose to appoint him anyway.

Lord Mandelson claims not to know or recall details of the latest tranche of emails, photos and bank transfers - involving large amounts of cash sent to him and his husband.

He says to The Times today: "Downing Street did not know what I had long since forgotten. It was a distant chapter from which I have very little recall and have no access at all to records or a diary."

Upon re-opening Lord Mandelson's 2010 published memoirs, however, he tells a slightly different story.

On page one of the acknowledgements, he says: "For many years I have been an inveterate note-taker and sporadic diary-keeper. This book is the result."

The Prince of Darkness' story isn't quite as straight as it appears.

Government figures including the PM's chief secretary, Darren Jones, propose a different explanation.

They suggest that Lord Mandelson has "lied" in his disclosure and vetting procedures, arguing that the PM did not have all the information before he was given the job.

That leaves major questions remaining about what information was disclosed and what wasn't. Were there concerns from the security services? What worries did they have, if any, about his background, relationships and links?

More curious still is why Sir Keir Starmer would not immediately start the process of stripping his peerage from him on Monday.

Downing Street said he wants him to relinquish it himself, but 24 hours on, that request is yet to be fulfilled.

The PM is calling for wholesale Lords reform to prevent this from happening again, which will require cross-party buy-in to get over the line and may not actually apply to Mandelson himself.

Yesterday Labour MP Andy McDonald and others demanded he start the process of passing a law to do this, which is in the gift of the government with a huge majority to do.

The fact that Lord Mandelson tried so hard to cling to his job when further embarrassing evidence of his links to Epstein emerged last year shows it may need to be the PM's choice, not Mandelson's.

Today, we've seen the PM take matters into his own hands, and start the process of drafting an act of parliament in order to strip him of it.

Many people will ask why he bothered to wait.

There is the possibility that Mandelson be motivated by the protection that being a peer may afford him, given the Clintons have now agreed to testify over Epstein in the US.

Or, he may be interested still in yet another political comeback, when the dust has settled.

Fourth time lucky?

____________________

Natasha Clark is LBC's Political Editor.

LBC Opinion provides a platform for diverse opinions on current affairs and matters of public interest.

The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official LBC position.

To contact us email opinion@lbc.co.uk