Afternoon summary
For a full list of all the stories covered on the blog today, do scroll through the list of key event headlines near the top of the blog.
Peers inflict two defeats on government as crime and policing bill continues 'ping pong'
Peers have inflicted two defeats on the government in an ongoing dispute about the final details of the crime and policing bill.
The bill has gone through all its main Commons and Lords stages, and is now in “ping pong”, as the two houses send it back and forth as they try to resolve outstanding differences.
As the Press Association reports, peers have voted by 282 to 184, a majority of 98, to continue their standoff with MPs over how to crack down on for-profit fixed-penalty notices (FPNs).
In a defeat for the government, peers backed a proposal by the Lib Dem peer Lord Clement-Jones to have local councils strip private companies of their ability to fine people where they are found to have a financial incentive to issue FPNs. Ministers claim this is “disproportionate”.
And peers also voted by 281 to 190, a majority of 91, for a mandatory review of whether any Iran-related entities should be banned as terrorist organisations. The government says this is not necessary.
Badenoch accuses Starmer of giving misleading account of Robbins' select committee evidence at PMQs
Kemi Badenoch has accused Keir Starmer of giving a misleading account of what Olly Robbins told the Commons foreign affairs committee yesterday. (See 2.16pm.) She posted this on social media.
Today at PMQs, Keir Starmer selectively quoted Olly Robbins’ evidence at the Foreign Affairs Select Committee.
Starmer said on Mandelson’s vetting: “no pressure existed whatsoever in relation to this case”.
But Robbins’ own written evidence to the Committee talks of an “atmosphere of pressure” from No10.
On Monday, Robbins told the Committee: “Throughout January, honestly, my office and the Foreign Secretary’s office were under constant pressure. There was an atmosphere of constant chasing”.
Starmer was therefore wrong to say that “no pressure existed whatsoever”.
He must correct the record immediately.
Here is Guardian video of the Starmer/Badenoch exchanges at PMQs today.
Tories say it would be wrong for Starmer to avoid PMQs next week by proroguing parliament early
The Conservatives have said that they would oppose plans to end the current session of parliament on Tuesday next week.
Keir Starmer reportedly wants to make next Tuesday the last sitting day of the 2024-26 session, which means MPs would then be away from parliament for just over two weeks, until the king’s speech on Wednesday 13 May.
Prorogation (the end of a session of parliament) had been expected a bit later. Wrapping up on Tuesday would mean Keir Starmer would avoid having to take PMQs on the Wednesday.
At their post-PMQs briefing, a spokesperson for Kemi Badenoch said the Tories would “strongly urge” the government to let parliament sit on Wednesday so that MPs can ask Starmer about the evidence being given by Morgan McSweeney, his former chief of staff, to the foreign affairs committee on Tuesday.
In a post on social media, Richard Holden, the shadow transport secretary, said:
This is a complete & utter disgrace from a Prime Minister running and hiding from @Conservatives leader @KemiBadenoch
It means Parliament finishes business on Tuesday, with the formal closing ceremony on Wednesday. So no #PMQs
Starmer’s a coward as well as a liar
Under Boris Johnson, the Conservatives tried to prorogue parliament five weeks ahead of the state opening of parliament to avoid defeats on Brexi legislation. In an unprecedented case, the supreme court ruled this unlawful.
Polanski says Greens should reform their policy process, amid fears too many of their pledges won't survive Daily Mail scrutiny
And, on the subject of the Greens, Zack Polanski, the leader, has said that he wants to change the way the party makes policy.
The Greens are the most democratic of all the main UK parties, because policy is voted on by members at the party’s conference and there is no mechanism for the leader to ignore or sideline what has been decided by activists, as happens in other parties.
Speaking to Sam Blewett for a Politico story, Polanski said:
Our policy making process came about when we had something like 20,000 members. We just hit 226,000, so in terms of how the conference process works, I think the obvious place I would start is – it’s not working as well as it should at the moment.
Polanski did not say in any detail how he would like to change the system, although he said he would like to see more power given to individuals “elected by the membership” to set policy.
Party officials told Politico that they were worried about a range of radical policies already on the books that could be designed “for the Daily Mail to ring us up about” and that they would wanted to cull some of these at the party conference in the autumn.
Updated
Jennie Formby, Labour’s former general secretary, says she has joined Greens
Jennie Formby, a former Labour general secretary, has defected to the Green party, in the latest sign that allies of Jeremy Corbyn are moving in large numbers to Zack Polanski’s party. Kiran Stacey has the story.
Labour MP Jonathan Brash says Starmer should go to end 'pyschodrama' distracting from Labour's achievements
The Labour MP Jonathan Brash, who was elected in 2024 for Hartlepool (Peter Mandelson’s old seat), has told GB News that he thinks Keir Starmer should resign.
He claimed that Starmer’s resignation was now inevitable, and that the distraction provided by the Mandelson scandal was making it hard for the government to do its job.
He said:
I’ve got to be clear, I am completely fed up to the back teeth of this psychodrama in Westminster, the own goals that are coming from the heart of this government.
Meanwhile, we’ve got fantastic Labour councillors, canvassers, activists up and down the country, working hard and delivering for their constituencies, like mine in Hartlepool, facing local elections in the shadow of this absolute mess. They just need to get a grip.
I’m completely fed up about it, and I think it’s got to the point now where I genuinely think that, as far as the prime minister is concerned, it’s not a case of if, it’s when.
Asked why Starmer should resign, Brash said:
Why? Because ultimately, we’ve become completely consumed by this turmoil at a time when that is not what the British public are focused on …
I just think we need to get a handle on this, because people out there are worried about their cost of living, they’re worried about their NHS, they’re worried about crime on their streets, and we’re completely consumed by this scandal, and it’s completely unacceptable …
It’s our responsibility to always be where the British public are.
Brash said that he was “very frustrated, very fed up” about the fact that the many “fantastic” things the government was doing, including investment in his constituency, were not getting attention because of Westminster scandals.
He also said he did not accept that replacing Starmer would hurt Labour electorally.
The reality is we have to focus on what the British people care about, and we’re being consumed by the psychodrama.
Only a handful for Labour MPs have, like Brash, publicly called for Starmer to go. But many more voice similar views in private.
Updated
Lord Butler, who was cabinet secretary between 1988 and 1998, has joined the long list of former senior civil servants criticising the decision to sack Olly Robbins.
In an interview on Radio 4’s the World at One, Butler said that getting rid of Robbins was “not in the national interest”.
He told the programme:
I think that the Olly Robbins episode has done a great deal of harm to the relationship between the politicians and the civil service.
Things work better, obviously, when politicians and civil servants work together harmoniously with mutual respect in the national interest
And this is an episode which will make this more difficult.
John Swinney, the SNP leader and Scottish first minister, has accused Keir Starmer of a “vacuum of leadership”.
Speaking at a campaign event in Edinburgh, he said:
As I look at the evidence of Olly Robbins yesterday – and whatever the trials and tribulations, the bits and pieces in this whole farce about Mandelson’s appointment to the most prestigious ambassadorial role in the United Kingdom, it’s crystal clear that there was political impetus behind this to make it happen. That’s on Keir Starmer.
Claiming there was an “appalling vacuum of leadership” under Starmer, Swinney said:
This is a political decision and it should be owned by the prime minister.
The only conclusion to that is the prime minister should resign.
Lib Dems call for inquiry into who was lobbying for Doyle to get diplomatic job
Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, has followed up his question to Keir Starmer at PMQs (see 12.22pm) by calling for an inquiry into who was lobbying for Matthew Doyle to be offered a diplomatic job. Davey said:
For Number 10 to ask the Foreign Office to find a plum diplomatic job for another Labour crony who was friends with a convicted sex offender – and to instruct that to be kept secret from the foreign secretary – is completely shocking.
On top of his catastrophic lack of judgment, Keir Starmer’s failure to answer simple questions about his own role [see 12.04pm] just isn’t good enough. The public deserves the truth, so we can move on from this scandal and make sure nothing like it can ever happen again.
The government needs to launch an inquiry by the cabinet secretary to find out who was doing this lobbying, why, and whether the prime minister knew about it or not.
Starmer claims 'no pressure' put on Foreign Office to approve Mandelson's vetting in PMQs clash with Badenoch
Keir Starmer claimed at PMQs that no pressure was put on the Foreign Office to approve the vetting of Peter Mandelson.
Speaking during his exchanges with Kemi Badenoch, the PM used quotes from Olly Robbins, the fomer Foreign Office permanent secretary, in his evidence to MPs yesterday to justify his claim.
He was speaking in response to a question from Badenoch who said that the appointment of Mandelson was a “done deal” as far as No 10 was concerned. She quoted Robbins telling the committee that No 10 wanted Mandelson in Washington as quickly as possible and that No 10 showed a “dismissive attitude to vetting”.
Starmer replied:
Sir Olly Robbins could not have been clearer in his evidence yesterday, he said this, ‘I didn’t feel under pressure personally in terms of my judgments’, his words.
He went on to say ‘I have complete confidence that recommendations to me and the discussions we had and the decision we made were rigorously independent of any pressure.’
On top of that, he was asked if any conversations led him to believe that Mandelson needed to take up the role regardless of vetting outcomes. He said: ‘I can say with certainty it was never put to me in that way.’
No pressure existed whatsoever in relation to this case.
What is unacceptable is that the recommendation of UKSV [UK Security Vetting] was not given to me before Mandelson took up his post.
In this instance, Starmer’s summary of Robbins’ evidence was selective. While Robbins did tell the committee that he felt confident that he personally was able to exercise his judgment independently in relation to the Mandelson vetting application, regardless of what No 10 wanted, he also gave a lot of evidence about how the department generally was under pressure to get the appointment finalised.
In an interview with Sky News this morning, Emily Thornberry, chair of the foreign affairs committee that took evidence from Robbins, suggested that she was not wholly convinced by Robbins’claim that he was not influenced by the pressure on the department.
She said;
If you’re a civil servant, your job as a civil servant is to facilitate what it is that politicians want you to do. So I think there was a bit of that [in this case].
And when I said I didn’t think that [Robbins] gave his full account, I think although he said he was under a huge amount of pressure, his evidence was that that pressure didn’t affect his decision. But I’m not sure about that.
We didn’t hear evidence of that, but I think … he thought, right, OK, let’s see what we can do in order to try to make the best of this difficult situation.
Capita losing contract to run Royal Mail's pension scheme, minister tells MPs
The new Royal Mail statutory pension scheme contract with Capita has been terminated, a Cabinet Office minister has said, after “they failed to deliver numerous milestones”. Nick Thomas-Symonds, the Cabinet Office minister, made the announcement in a statement to MPs. He said:
The security and dignity of those who have dedicated their careers to our public services are not negotiable, and they deserve a pension service that is reliable, efficient and secure.
But for these principles to be more than just words, they need to be underpinned by rigorous accountability and refusal to accept second best.
Explaining the reasons for the termination of the contract, he said:
I want to give the first update to the house on the Royal Mail statutory pension scheme. Following a failure to meet critical transition milestones and a lack of confidence in Capita’s ability to implement and transition to the new operating model in a timely fashion, I’m announcing today to the house that I have terminated the new Royal Mail statutory pension scheme contract with Capita.
Capita had an 18-month planning window to prepare for the transition. They failed to deliver numerous milestones, including a failure to implement the required IT automation. The Cabinet Office repeatedly flagged delays in transition milestones.
Some of the problems with Capita’s handling of the Royal Mail pension scheme have been highlighted by the Unite union.
On Thursday next week the Guardian is holding a debate about whether Labour can come back from the brink. The Guardian columnist, Gaby Hinsliff, will chair a panel of Guardian columnists including Polly Toynbee, Rafael Behr and Zoe Williams. It will take place at Conway Hall in London at 7.30pm and there are tickets available to attend in person, or to listen online. Details are here.
Morgan McSweeney, Starmer’s former chief of staff, to be questioned by MPs next Tuesday
Morgan McSweeney, the prime minister’s former chief of staff, has been summoned before the foreign affairs select committee as the Peter Mandelson vetting row continued to undermine Keir Starmer’s premiership, Pippa Crerar reports. As MPs attempt to unravel the facts, McSweeney is to appear next Tuesday to respond to allegations that Downing Street put huge pressure on the civil service to approve his appointment as the UK’s ambassador to Washington.
PMQs - snap verdict
It is hard to prove that a minister has lied to the House of Commons. That is partly because ministers tend to be wary about saying things in the chamber that are outright falsehoods (part of the reason why a lot of political communication is waffly), but mainly it is because the adjudicating body in these disputes (the Commons privileges committee) applies a high burden of proof, words are slippery and subject to different interpretations, and MPs can normally justify what they say. But it is quite easy to establish that a minister has done something reckless, foolish or unsavoury. That is because they do make these sorts of mistakes quite often, and in this case the adjudicating body is the public at large – more of a push-over than the privileges committee.
All of this is a long-winded way of saying it was very odd for Kemi Badenoch to structure her entire script around trying to show that “due process” was not followed in the Peter Mandelson vetting process. At PMQs last year Starmer said it was, which would lay him open to the misleading parliament charge (or at least the charge that he did not correct a misleading statement quickly) if Badenoch could prove her case. But she couldn’t.
She would have done much better finding other ways of attacking Starmer over Mandelson – perhaps by backing Mark Sedwill and calling for Olly Robbins to get his job back (see 8.35am), or focusing exclusively on Mandelson’s links to a Russian defence company, which was where she was at her best today. (See 12.13pm.)
Instead, Badenoch seemed to be banging away at “due process” because she is still trying to prove that she was right last week to make this an issue about parliament being misled. As explained yesterday, this is a mistake on her behalf – not least because Robbins’s evidence yesterday implied Morgan McSweeney was furious because the Foreign Office was following due process, and not just rushing the vetting asap.
Today was the third day in a row Badenoch was debating Mandelson in the Commons. Even those of us fascinated by the minutiae of this story will have found it a bit dull. This helped Starmer, and he was probably better and stronger on this topic today than he was on Monday. (He was not in the chamber yesterday, when it was left to Darren Jones to reply to Badenoch’s due process diatribe.)
Labour MPs did not seem very happy with any of this, but this was not an outing that made the situation any worse. And it is reported that it will probably be the last PMQs of this parliamentary session. Starmer will be relieved. Whether he will still be there at the end of the 2026-27 parliamentary session remains to be seen.
Sarah Pochin (Reform UK) says Pakistani grooming gangs are still attacking white girls. She says Starmer should be focusing on this instead of giving jobs to the friends of paedophiles.
Starmer says he spent many years prosecuting paedophiles, and that he does not need lectures from Pochin on this.
Updated
Rachael Maskell (Lab) asks about a York hospital that was closed in 2015. She says the site was given to the city in the 18th century, but that it is now being sold for luxury housing. She says it should be used for the benefit of the city.
Starmer says ministers will work with the council on a solution that will benefit the city.
Tessa Munt (Lib Dem) asks about the chinook crash on the Mull of Kintyre in 1994. Relatives of those killed were told they would get an explanation. The MoD is failing to give them that, she says. She says they are not asking for an inquiry – just an explanation as to why their loved ones were placed on a helicotper that was not fit to fly.
Starmer says he will ensure that the MoD look at this again, and that a proper meeting with families take place.
Carla Lockhart (DUP) asks about a boy in her constituency who died from MLD. She says this is a terrible condition. But it can be treated, and it can be picked up by screening. She says MLD has been excluded from the pin-prick screening for children. She asks for this to change.
Starmer says he will ensure this matter gets looked at again.
Lincoln Jopp (Con) says last week a man was arrested in his constituency after approaching children from a primary school. He was subsequently detained under the Mental Health Act. He says the man was living in Home Office accommodation near the school. Who put him there?
Starmer says this is a live case. But he says councils are given the chance to object to decisions about where people in Home Office accommodation go.
Updated
Richard Foord (Lib Dem) says Lord Carrington resigned as foreign secretary over the Falkland Islands, even though he was not personally to blame. He accepted ministerial responsibility. Does Starmer also believe in that?
Starmer repeats the point about how he should have been told about the UKSV Mandelson recommendation.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Con) asks when Jonathan Powell was appointed envoy for the Chagos Islands, and what security clearance he got.
Starmer does not answer the question, but says Powell is doing an excellent job and is respected around the world.
Ellie Chowns (Green) accuses Starmer of throwing Olly Robbins under a bus to save his skin. She says he should resign.
Starmer says he should have been told the UK Security Vetting said Mandelson’s clearance should be denied.
Starmer calls Lib Dem claim about Treasury getting windfall from higher oil prices 'politically misleading and economically illiterate'
Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, says, when he was asked on Monday if he had considered other political diplomatic appointments, he did not answer. He says the last 24 hours have jogged his memory. He asks if Starmer knew personally about the proposed appointment of Matthew Doyle.
Starmer says nothing came of that.
Davey asks if the government will cut rail and bus fares, and slash petrol prices, to help people with higher energy prices, using the windfall the Treasury has had from higher fuel prices. (Because prices are up, VAT revenue is up too.)
Starmer says the idea that the Treasury is getting a windfall from the Iran war is “politically misleading and economically illiterate”.
Badenoch says due process was not followed. She says Starmer misled MPs when he claimed it had been. She says he should go.
Starmer says he should have been told that the vetting process said Mandleson’s clearance should be denied. He goes on:
[Badenoch] claimed on Friday that Mandelson could not have been cleared against security advice. She was wrong about that.
She said that ministers must have been told. She was wrong about that.
She claimed there was deliberate dishonesty. She was wrong about that.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. She rushed to judgment, as she always did.
And he compares that to Badenoch’s stance on the Iran war.
Badenoch says she would never have appointed someone with Kremlin links to a job of this kind. She asks Starmer again how he can claim due process was followed.
Starmer says Mandelson got access to highly secret STRAP material after his vetting, but he saw other material beforehand because he was a privy counsellor.
Badenoch asks why Mandelson got the job when he had been on the board of a Russian defence firm.
Starmer says the developed vetting process was there to consider the risks.
Starmer claims Robbins's evidence confirmed he personally was not under any pressure to approve Mandelson's vetting
Badenoch says Starmer is relying on advice he got after Mandelson was sacked, not before.
She says the appointment was a done deal. Robbins said the PM’s team showed a dismissive approach to vetting. This was not proper process. She asks why due process was not followed.
Starmer says Robbins was clear that he was not under pressure personally in terms of his judgment.
He says Robbins also said that the decisions he took were independent of any pressure.
And Robbins said no one told him that vetting could be ignored.
Starmer claims Robbins said “no pressure” whatsoever was placed on him in this case.
Updated
Badenoch said Simon Case, the then cabinet secretary, told Starmer to get security clearance for Mandelson before announcing the appointment. That did not happen. She says that shows due process was not followed.
Starmer says Chris Wormald was asked to look at this when he was cabinet secretary. He said the normal process was followed.
He says it was normal for politcal appointees to get their vetting post-appointment.
And he says that Robbins said yesterday that the proper process had been followed.
Kemi Badenoch asks Starmer if he stands by his statement to the Commons yesterday that full due process was followed when Peter Mandelson was appointed ambassador.
Starmer says he does stand by that.
He says Olly Robbins said yesterday he had not told Starmer about the vetting concerns being raised about Mandelson.
If that information had been shared, Mandelson would not have been appointed.
Starmer refuses to deny No 10 considered offering Matthew Doyle diplomatic post
Mike Wood (Con) asks Starmer if he can deny that No 10 considered appointing Matthew Doyle to a diplomatic role.
Starmer says, when people leave a role, employers often consider other roles for them. But nothing came of this, he says.
Keir Starmer starts by saying Queen Elizabeth devoted her life to public service. He says there will be a permanent memorial to her.
Recently, we have seen despicable antisemitic arson attacks, he says. He says the governmet will do all in its power to protect Jewish communities.
And he says Stephen Lawrence was murdered 33 years ago today.
Poll shows Reform UK and Plaid Cymru neck and neck in Wales, as another says Labour facing 'historic losses' in London
Opinion polls also help to shape the mood on the government benches ahead of PMQs, and there are two important ones out today.
YouGov has released a poll for the Senedd election suggesting Reform UK and Plaid Cymru are neck and neck. In its write-up, YouGov says:
YouGov’s second MRP model of the 2026 Senedd election for ITV Cymru Wales shows the race to be the largest party in the next Welsh parliament is on a knife-edge, with a central projection of 37 seats for Reform UK and 36 seats for Plaid Cymru.
Our latest model, which uses data from over 3,000 adults in Wales in fieldwork from 6-15 April, represents a tightening of the contest, with Plaid Cymru down by seven seats relative to our first MRP last month, while Reform UK are up by a corresponding amount.
Here are the results.
And this YouGov chart shows that, if these turn out to be the results on election day, the only party capable of having a majority (49 seats) would be Plaid, in partnership with two other parties.
YouGov has also published MRP projections for the local elections in London. It says Labour is on course for big losses. It says:
YouGov’s new MRP model published today – our first ever in London for borough elections – projects a seismic shift for local government in the capital, with major gains for the Greens and Reform UK, as well as historic losses for Labour, who are on course to lose councils they’ve held for decades. In many boroughs, though, the margins are small, with multiple parties plausibly being victorious on 7 May.
Most of the papers make grim reading for Labour MPs ahead of PMQs. Here are extracts from two articles that are particularly striking.
At the New Statesman, Tom McTague, the editor, says Keir Starmer is failing.
One of the privileges – if that is the right word – of my job is to speak with MPs, cabinet ministers, government officials and political advisers on a regular basis, usually in private, over lunch or dinner or a glass of wine. And when I do so, the same story has been repeated again and again. The prime minister is failing. He is not doing the job. He cannot do the job. The country can see this too. And yet, for months, nothing changed, the party as dumb and docile and fatalistic as before. MPs declare the status quo cannot continue, but the herd does not move, and is unsure what to do – how, when or why …
In summary, the prime minister got rid of Robbins for not blocking the appointment of the man he had already announced as ambassador, the man he had blessed by the king and whose appointment had been agreed by the US. And all because Robbins had agreed with the advice of his officials who said the security risks raised about Mandelson in the vetting process were manageable. It is hard to think of a more pathetic series of events.
And the Financial Times presents this version of what happened at cabinet yesterday.
Sir Keir Starmer on Tuesday went through the motions of defending his handling of the Peter Mandelson scandal, but the mood around the cabinet table – the averted eyes, the virtual silence – pointed to a prime minister in serious political trouble.
Starmer repeated his assertion that he had been badly let down by the Foreign Office, which had failed to stop him doing what he wanted to do: appoint the scandal-prone Mandelson to the highest-profile job in British diplomacy.
One person briefed on the cabinet meeting said there was little sympathy for Starmer and his decision to make Mandelson Britain’s ambassador to the US. “People had their heads down, looking at the desk. He was met in virtual silence,” they added.
Starmer faces Badenoch at PMQs
PMQs is starting soon.
Here is the list of MPs down to ask a question.
UK inflation rises to 3.3% amid biggest jump in fuel prices in more than three years
UK inflation accelerated to 3.3% in March after the Iran war triggered the biggest jump in fuel prices for more than three years, Richard Partington reports.
Today the Liberal Democrats staged a photocall to publicise their line about this being “Trumpflation”. Daisy Cooper, the Lib Dem deputy leader and Treasury spokesperson, said:
People across our country have been struggling for years with a devastating cost-of-living crisis and Donald Trump’s idiotic war in Iran has added to it. The cost of fuel is soaring, mortgage rates are rising and fixed energy deals are already going up by hundreds of pounds.
But what is utterly inexcusable is that there are politicians in this country - Nigel Farage and Kemi Badenoch - who are happy to cheerlead Donald Trump as he hikes people’s bills. All the while this Labour government promised to fix the country but instead we’ve got political Groundhog Day: yet more sleaze and scandal.
Emily Thornberry says it was right for Robbins to lose his job
Emily Thornberry, the Labour MP who chairs the Commons foreign affairs committee, told Sky News this morning that she thought Keir Starmer was right to sack Olly Robbins as head of the Foreign Office. She said:
I’m not saying I’m not sympathetic. I’m not saying that he hasn’t been through a very difficult time. But if you were to ask me, do I think that, in all the circumstances, it was right for him to lose his job? I think actually it was.
Thornberry said Robbins “should have told the prime minister, or should have told somebody,” about the concerns raised during Peter Mandelson’s security vetting.
Reeves says sacking Robbins was right decision
Heather Stewart is the Guardian’s economics editor.
While Pat McFadden this morning declined to say that sacking Olly Robbins was fair (see 9.38am), Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, has been more supportive. She may be one of Keir Starmer’s loyal allies left in cabinet (in part because their fortunes are tied – a new PM would almost certainly send a new person to head the Treasury). This is what she said at the Good Growth Foundation event last nigth when asked if sacking Robbins was the right decision.
Yes, I think it was. It was a difficult decision as well, and you have to make judgments on these things.
But what we heard from Olly Robbins confirmed what the prime minister set out [on Monday], which was that there were lots of opportunities to tell the prime minister, and the foreign secretary, and the cabinet secretary, that Peter Mandelson had failed the vetting process, and on none of those occasions – either ahead of Peter Mandelson taking the role, or when Peter Mandelson was sacked, or when the foreign secretary was asked by the foreign affairs select committee about the vetting process – on none of those occasions was that information provided.
SNP defends replacing Swinney with Mairi McAllan on panel to stop leaders' debates being male dominated
Libby Brooks is the Guardian’s Scotland correspondent.
When I first arrived back in Scotland to report on the 2014 independence referendum, the move against ‘manels’ – all male political panels – was in full swing, with the campaign group Women for Independence in particular quick to call out unrepresentative debate.
A few years later and a significant shift had occurred. Remember the days when Holyrood parties were led by women? Nicola Sturgeon, Ruth Davidson, Kezia Dugdale? Now fast forward to the 2026 campaign and the manel is back with a vengeance with only Gillian Mackay, co-leader of the Scottish Greens, breaking up the wall of suits (on the occasions when she is representing her party, not her co-leader Ross Greer).
So it’s worth noting that yesterday, when the SNP announced that their representative for a special election Question Time with Thursday would be housing secretary Mairi McAllan, not leader John Swinney, some opposition voices were slow to pick up the point. The Tories dismissed Swinney as “cowardly” and the Lib Dems accused him of “dodging scrutiny like … Boris Johnson”.
As the woman in question – who many tip as a future FM – explained:
There have been many male-dominated debate panels during this campaign so far. The first minister and the SNP strongly believe that women’s voices should be heard in the campaign and so I will be pleased to take part in this week’s Question Time
The first minister is looking forward to the next televised leaders debate but is determined that women will be heard and is more than confident in the talent of senior members of his team to highlight the SNP’s record and put forward our positive, ambitious plans for Scotland.
McFadden strongly backs 'tough' Shabana Mahmood over her swearing at pro-migration protesters
Pat McFadden was not exactly gung-ho in his support for Keir Starmer this morning, but he was enthusiastic when asked about Shabana Mahmood, the home secretary. On LBC Nick Ferrari, the presenter, asked if he was happy about Mahmood telling pro-migration protesters who heckled her about her policies at an event on Monday night to “fuck right off”.
It seemed he was. McFadden replied:
Shabana is a robust lady, and she always has my full support. I think she’s an enormous asset to the government.
Asked if swearing was appropriate, McFadden said: “I think Shabana Mahmood is great.” He also pointed out that Ferrari did not know what the atmosphere was in the theatre when the incident happened.
Asked if he was about happy with Mahmood’s immigration policies, McFadden replied:
I think her policies are right. I think she’s an enormous asset to the government, and she’s a robust lady. We need tough people in politics, and she’s tough.
In his interview with Sky News, while not saying he fully supported the appointment of Peter Mandelson as ambassador to the US, Pat McFadden did say that he could “see the rationale” for it.
Asked if he was worried when he heard about the appointment, he replied:
No, because I could see the rationale for it … This was an unusual appointment, a political appointment, in fact they happen on occasion, not very often.
But I could see the rationale for this appointment because you were dealing with a very new kind of US administration, trade was going to be at the heart of our relationship with this administration.
So, having a political appointment and someone with trade experience, I could see why such an appointment was made.
And to be honest, so could many other people at the time of the announcement. This was not greeted with horror.
McFadden declines to say he thinks sacking Robbins was fair
In an interview with Times Radio, Pat McFadden repeatedly declined to say that he thought the sacking of Olly Robbins was fair.
When Kate McCann asked this, McFadden replied:
I do know Olly Robbins. And as I said, I think very highly of him. I think if the prime minister has made the judgment that he’s not got confidence in the head of the Foreign Office, then it’s difficult to continue.
That is not to say that Olly Robbins is not an extremely distinguished civil servant. I think what this really came down to was a disagreement on judgment.
Olly Robbins made the judgment that he didn’t have to share this information with the prime minister. The prime minister takes a very different view. He thought that information should be shared. And it’s on the basis of that disagreement that the prime minister took his decision.
When pressed again, McFadden said: “It’s the prime minister’s judgment.” When McCann put it to him that he was not saying if he thought the sacking was fair, McFadden replied: “Of course as a cabinet member, I support the prime minister’s decisions.”
McFadden also said that until yesterday he did not know that No 10 had considered appointing Matthew Doyle, the PM’s communications secretary at the time, to an ambassadorial job. “I don’t think that would have been the right thing to do,” he said.
McFadden’s interview will be seen as fresh evidence that cabinet ministers who have been loyal to Keir Starmer, and who would be regarded as members of his inner circle (in so far as he has one), are starting to distance themselves from the PM a bit. Yesterday Ed Miliband, the energy secretary, was very explicit about how he thought appointing Mandelson as an ambassador was wrong, and Yvette Cooper, the foreign secretary, strongly condemned the Doyle job proposal (which came to nothing). Today the Daily Mail highlights the Miliband and Cooper comments in its splash.
Updated
Pat McFadden urges Labour MPs to let Starmer 'do job he was elected to do'
Pat McFadden, the work and pensions secretary, is one of the ministers sent out by No 10 to defend Keir Starmer on the airwaves in situations that are particularly difficult, and today he was on the morning interview circuit.
In an interview with Sky News, McFadden did not accept that the mood among Labour MPs was mutinous. Asked if he had a message for colleagues who do want to see Starmer replaced, he replied:
My message to them is the prime minister has acknowledged this appointment was a mistake, whatever the rationale was for it. And to be a prime minister is to be a decision-making machine. And they won’t all be right.
But that doesn’t mean you ditch the leader. It doesn’t mean you change prime minister. I think we’ve had too much of that in the UK in recent years.
I think we need a period of keeping a prime minister for a period of time to let him do the job he was elected to do. This is a difficult story, it’s a difficult week.
Ex-Foreign Office chief Simon McDonald joins ex cabinet secretary Mark Sedwill in saying Robbins should get job back
Simon McDonald, who has Olly Robbins’ predecessor but one as permanent secretary at the Foreign Office, has joined Mark Sedwill (see 8.35am) and the others saying Robbins should get his job back.
In an article for the Guardian, McDonald says:
Robbins did his job, aware of the pressure from across Downing Street but not buckling to it. And yet misunderstanding about what that job required led the prime minister to rush to a wrong judgment. I cannot believe that, had he waited until after the foreign affairs select committee session, the PM would have sacked Robbins.
The world is an uncertain place. The Foreign Office and its professional head are dealing with simultaneous crises in Ukraine, the Middle East and the transatlantic relationship. Britain cannot afford a gap at the top, nor can it afford to lose the services of a first-class civil servant whose diligence and thoughtfulness were on full display yesterday in Portcullis House. There is one immediate conclusion in my view: the government should reinstate Robbins as permanent undersecretary.
And here is McDonald’s argument in full.
Starmer to face MPs for first time since Olly Robbins’ Mandelson evidence
Good morning. Keir Starmer faces PMQs today with the Peter Mandelson vetting row still dominating the Westminster agenda and – in the view of most observers familiar with the views of Labour MPs – the wagons of doom circling in, ever closer, on the Starmer premiership. In an ideal world, the fate of prime ministers would be decided by the big issues, not arcane scandals and personality spats. But we don’t live in the ideal world; we live in 21st century Britain, where everyone has social media on their phone. And even if you don’t care much about Mandelson, there is a link between how Starmer has handled this and wider government failures.
Starmer’s position got worse yesterday as Olly Robbins, the person he sacked as Foreign Office permanent secretary, gave evidence to MPs. Here is our overnight story about it by Pippa Crerar and Kiran Stacey.
Pippa and Kiran report: “Labour MPs have been appalled by the recurring reminder that Starmer personally decided to appoint someone with Mandelson’s reputation to the UK’s most sensitive diplomatic post, and warned that his leadership is now on borrowed time.”
Last week Kemi Badenoch, the Conservative leader, was trying to nail Starmer with the charge that he lied to parliament. She failed, because all the evidence suggests he didn’t. In his statement to MPs on Monday, Starmer turned this into a process debate. But that focuses attention on whether he was right to sack Robbins and many people watching the former civil servant yesterday took the view that Robbins should have kept his job.
One of those people is Mark Sedwill, who was cabinet secretary from 2018 to 2020. In a letter in the Times, he says hearing showed that “the calm integrity and intelligence which have characterised [Robbins’] distinguished career of public service”. Sedwill said Robbins should get his job back.
The prime minister appointed Peter Mandelson against official advice, announced that appointment without security vetting having been completed and claims that he would have changed his mind had he been told that the vetting process had raised the concerns about Mandelson’s previous conduct of which he was already well aware.
As Robbins explained yesterday, the question for him was not whether to tell the prime minister what he already knew, but whether those issues could be mitigated enough to allow Mandelson access to the secret intelligence necessary to do his job. He made the professional judgment that they could. Unwisely as it turned out, he shouldered his responsibilities rather than shunting them.
The prime minister should retract his accusations against Olly Robbins and reinstate him to the job the country needs him to do of getting the diplomatic service into shape for the second quarter of the 21st century.
This is bound to feature again at PMQs. It will be one of those day when what will matter most will probably not be what gets said, but the expressions on the faces of Labour MPs.
Here is the agenda for the day.
Noon: Keir Starmer faces Kemi Badenoch at PMQs.
2.15pm: Hilary Benn, the Northern Ireland secretary, gives evidence to the joint committee on human rights about the human rights implications of the Troubles bill.
Afternoon: MPs debate Lords amendments to the children’s wellbeing and schools bill. As Sally Weale reports, the government is accepting a Tory proposal for a ban on smartphones in schools to be made statutory. But it is not accepting the amendment from Tory peers implementing a social media ban for under-16s.
5pm: Nigel Farage, the Reform UK leader, speaks at a rally in Barnsley.
If you want to contact me, please post a message below the line when comments are open (between 10am and 3pm), or message me on social media. I can’t read all the messages BTL, but if you put “Andrew” in a message aimed at me, I am more likely to see it because I search for posts containing that word.
If you want to flag something up urgently, it is best to use social media. You can reach me on Bluesky at @andrewsparrowgdn.bsky.social. The Guardian has given up posting from its official accounts on X, but individual Guardian journalists are there, I still have my account, and if you message me there at @AndrewSparrow, I will see it and respond if necessary.
I find it very helpful when readers point out mistakes, even minor typos. No error is too small to correct. And I find your questions very interesting too. I can’t promise to reply to them all, but I will try to reply to as many as I can, either BTL or sometimes in the blog.
Updated
