DAN HODGES: A top No 10 aide tried to stop me calling Starmer a liar. But here’s the truth: He’s the most dishonest, deceitful and disreputable PM I’ve EVER known

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the first documented use of the noun ‘responsibility’ dates back to 1642 and the writings of a political historian named Henry Parker.

“The same Bills were issued by the King’s Council, on whose judgment and responsibilities the Vintners had to rely,” Parker noted, regarding a dispute lost in the mists of time.

The OED, the custodian of the world’s native language, defines the meaning of the word as ‘the ability to discharge an obligation or duty; the quality of being trustworthy or reliable.

It was deployed by another King’s Counsel last week. In response to the publication of the first part of the Mandelson papers, Sir Keir Starmer made the following short speech.

‘I made a mistake appointing Peter Mandelson,’ he said. ‘Let me follow this up, as I have done before, with an apology on behalf of the victims of Epstein. ‘This was my fault and I take responsibility for it.’

A few months ago, after writing about how Starmer had lied multiple times about the Chinese spy case, I received a call from one of his senior aides. For 22 minutes he politely but firmly berated me for deliberately accusing Sir Keir of cheating.

We discussed the various accusations I had made. But ultimately the thrust of his argument was this. ‘You may disagree with the Prime Minister,’ he said, ‘but when you openly accuse him of lying you not only undermine him, you undermine faith in our politicians and the entire political process. And you need to think about it.’

I think. That’s why I can say with confidence that Starmer is the most politically dishonest, discredited, dishonorable and deceptive Prime Minister of my adult life.

This is not a comment on his personal character. Politics corrupts and brutalizes the best. But his claim to ‘accept responsibility’ for the Mandelson affair was not only a misuse of the English language, but also an attempt to eviscerate it.

Let’s start from the point at which Starmer should have first assumed responsibility: Mandelson’s initial appointment.

He wasn’t choosing a plumber. His decision concerned who should occupy one of the most sensitive posts in the British diplomatic service.

It is set against a backdrop of war, the imposition of taxes that could potentially cripple every business and household in the country, and a White House occupant whose volatility quickly translates into outright instability.

Well, as we now know, what care did the Prime Minister take in his appointment?

Has he held a series of lengthy meetings with his preferred candidate to discuss his foreign relations strategy, goals and priorities? Or are there any meetings? Did he bother to phone Mandelson for a few minutes, taking time from watching his beloved Arsenal achieve yet another boring victory?

No. The man, we were told, was a great manager, had a forensic eye with great attention to detail, and delegated the entire process to his chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney, and communications director, Matthew Doyle. Then I just confirmed the appointment.

At this point it instantly blew up in his face. So, once again, has Sir Keir chosen to accept responsibility for his failure to properly ascertain his disgraced friend’s fitness for office? Again no.

What he did instead was to stand up in the House of Commons and claim: ‘As with all ambassadors, full due process was followed in this appointment.’

On Friday, I spoke to a senior civil servant with many years of direct experience in embassy selection and asked if this claim was true. ‘No, there is no such thing,’ he said. ‘The Prime Minister clearly felt he could do whatever he wanted. He had clearly decided that he would do whatever it took to appoint Mandelson, no matter what he was told.’

Then came the third situation in which Starmer could accept real responsibility. That’s when, in February, Mandelson’s full relationship with Epstein was revealed, including his questionable business dealings. So did the Prime Minister raise his hands again? Of course not.

He claimed that Mandelson deliberately lied to him to create the impression that he ‘little knew Epstein’. ‘At that stage I had no reason to think this was anything other than the truth.’

However, as a result of what was revealed last week, we now know the truth. At no stage did Starmer even bother to speak to Mandelson.

Although he was presented with a briefing document detailing Epstein’s friendship and warning of the risks involved, he once again handed over responsibility to McSweeney and Doyle, two of Mandelson’s personal friends.

One of them, Doyle, had a questionable relationship with a convicted pedophile.

Taking real responsibility doesn’t mean simply blurting out the phrase half-heartedly, then hurling it as a belated mea culpa at the victims of Epstein’s horrific crimes because the political heat has gotten too high. This means admitting honestly and openly that there comes a point when an error in judgment becomes so great that a personal price must be paid.

And if you’re approving the elevation of a close friend of the world’s most notorious child molester to the world’s most sensitive diplomatic post without proper scrutiny, and getting caught repeatedly lying to Parliament about it doesn’t meet the criteria, it’s hard to see what fits.

Not least because that price has now been paid by everyone connected with this tawdry affair. Mandelson, McSweeney, Doyle, Cabinet Secretary Chris Wormald. Every single one of them is gone. Now only Starmer remains, clinging like death to the doorframe of 10 Downing Street.

Yes, all politicians are deceptive. Thatcher most famously lied about Belgrano. But his motivation was a misguided attempt to protect the Armed Forces and broader national interests. Blair deceived the country about Iraq. But this was a deception born out of a messianic commitment to the Special Relationship, not personal survival.

As Starmer never tires of telling us, Boris lied again and again. But at least he did it with a smile on his lips that said, ‘You know this is bullshit, but let’s keep it our secret.’

Uniquely, it was Starmer who chose to place honesty, integrity and integrity at the heart of his political bid. A heart darkened beyond redemption by the Mandelson affair.

Last week the Prime Minister said he took full responsibility for the decision to appoint Mandelson despite his relationship with Epstein. Does he mean this? Or is this another of his lies?