Kevin Hollinrake MP

@Midlands_bloke 💯

@kevinhollinrake Is this real?

MUST WATCH: Olly Robbins confirms that Starmer personally chose Mandelson and that the FCDO was told to make it happen. Security officials said he shouldn’t get clearance. They were overruled. Starmer then told the public Mandelson had “clearance for the role.” He must he take responsibility and resign.

“The Prime Minister lied. It’s now in the national interest he goes.” Keir Starmer’s words…not ours. We’re only holding him to the standards he set himself.

Just pointing out that I broke the story 7 months ago that Mandelson failed vetting from the security services and put it to Downing Street...so the idea that Downing Street only found out on Tuesday is complete nonsense. independent.co.uk/news/uk/politi…

Keir Starmer told us Peter Mandelson had been cleared by the Security Services. He told us the "due process" was followed in Mandelson's appointment. We now know that's simply not true.

Not quite our night but some quiet reassuring progress. ➡️ Reform down over 9% 🌳 Conservative up 5.1% Well done @LeicesterTories, keep going! 💪

Keir Starmer lied. He must take responsibility, and resign.

No. 10 trying to save PMs skin over whether he misled the house. What was the test set by the Privileges committee that investivated whether Boris Johnson misled the house? It was recklessly misleading, not just intentional.....will Labour MPs hold Starmer to same standard?

🥳 Congratulations to Cllr Dr Neil Graham on gaining Cramlington South West from Reform in Northumberland!

Another Conservative gain from Reform 🏆

It is preposterous for Starmer to claim he did not know Mandelson failed security vetting. If the Prime Minister doesn’t know what’s happening in his own office, he shouldn’t be in charge of our country. He should go.

“I never turn on my staff” “When they make mistakes, I carry the can” Really? 🤔

The Prime Minister appointed Peter Mandelson before the vetting had been completed, vetting Mandelson failed. Starmer then said full due process was followed. THAT is misleading Parliament. I'm only holding him to the same standards to which he’s held previous Prime Ministers - that if they mislead parliament, they should resign. In these dangerous times, Britain cannot afford to have a Prime Minister who the country doesn't trust. Starmer has betrayed our national security. He should go.

A government spokesperson said: “The security vetting process for Peter Mandelson was sponsored by the FCDO. The decision to grant Developed Vetting to Peter Mandelson against the recommendation of UK Security Vetting was taken by officials in the FCDO. “Neither the Prime Minister, nor any Government Minister, was aware that Peter Mandelson was granted Developed Vetting against the advice of UK Security Vetting until earlier this week. “Once the Prime Minister was informed he immediately instructed officials to establish the facts about why the Developed Vetting was granted, in order to enact plans to update the House of Commons. “The Government is committed to complying with the Humble Address in full as soon as possible. Any documentation within the scope of the Humble Address that requires redaction on the basis of national security or international relations will be provided to the ISC. This will include documents provided to the FCDO by UK Security Vetting.” Background: The security vetting information from UK Security Vetting was obtained by officials undertaking the process in order to comply fully with the Humble Address. Once they received this information, the officials that obtained the information, the Prime Minister and the Cabinet Secretary agreed that there should be an exercise to establish the facts and that the information should be made public. The FCDO is a “make recommendation customer” for UK Security Vetting. This means that the FCDO is the ultimate decision making authority on Developed Vetting cases, based on a non-binding recommendation from UK Security Vetting.

Keir Starmer told the country Peter Mandelson had “clearance for the role.” He didn’t mention that clearance had been granted against the advice of our own security officials. Either he knew and misled the public or he vouched for a process he didn’t understand. Neither is acceptable in a Prime Minister. Govt statement below 🧵

So, if Mandelson failed his security clearance, Starmer clearly misled the House and the public and, according to the @guardian, the Government has tried to conceal this. In real speak, he lied and lied again and conspired to cover this up. On 4th February 2026, he told Kemi Badenoch “There was a due diligence exercise, and then there was security vetting by the security services.” At no point did he mention in his answer that he’d failed vetting. This would be a clear case of Misleading the House of Commons by omission - the act of deliberately leaving out crucial information to create a false impression - which is treated as a serious matter in the UK Parliament and can be classified as a contempt. “At a press conference in Hastings on 5 February, Starmer responded to a question from a journalist by saying there had been “security vetting, carried out independently by the security services, which is an intensive exercise that gave him [Mandelson] clearance for the role. You have to go through that before you take up the post.” “Further documents are due to be released. However, it can also be revealed that senior government officials have been considering whether to withhold from parliament documents that would reveal that Mandelson was not given vetting approval from security officials.” “Any attempt to withhold the documents from the intelligence and security committee could amount to a breach of a parliamentary motion to release “all papers relating to Mandelson’s appointment”. A shocking and unforgivable act for a British Prime Minister.

So, if Mandelson failed his security clearance, Starmer clearly misled the House and the public and, according to the @guardian, the Government has tried to conceal this. In real speak, he lied and lied again and conspired to cover this up. On 4th February 2026, he told Kemi Badenoch “There was a due diligence exercise, and then there was security vetting by the security services.” At no point did he mention in his answer that he’d failed vetting. This would be a clear case of Misleading the House of Commons by omission - the act of deliberately leaving out crucial information to create a false impression - which is treated as a serious matter in the UK Parliament and can be classified as a contempt. “At a press conference in Hastings on 5 February, Starmer responded to a question from a journalist by saying there had been “security vetting, carried out independently by the security services, which is an intensive exercise that gave him [Mandelson] clearance for the role. You have to go through that before you take up the post.” “Further documents are due to be released. However, it can also be revealed that senior government officials have been considering whether to withhold from parliament documents that would reveal that Mandelson was not given vetting approval from security officials.” “Any attempt to withhold the documents from the intelligence and security committee could amount to a breach of a parliamentary motion to release “all papers relating to Mandelson’s appointment”. A shocking and unforgivable act for a British Prime Minister.

If true, Starmer misled the house and the public. He said Mandelson “had clearance for the role” – now we learn he had not and security officials were overruled. This goes to the heart of his judgement and his honesty. He must actually answer questions on this or resign.

If true, Starmer misled the house and the public. He said Mandelson “had clearance for the role” – now we learn he had not and security officials were overruled. This goes to the heart of his judgement and his honesty. He must actually answer questions on this or resign.