Carrie

@Geri_E_L_Scott @Steven_Swinford Does anyone in Westminster realize that no one outside Westminster likes Streeting or waves him as leader? He's just Starmer but worse.

Excl: Angela Rayner’s allies are urging her to move against Starmer the moment local election results land - warning any delay hands Wes Streeting time to lock up MPs. Rayner is understood to be ready to intervene after May 7, but she has not yet decided what message to deliver. Streeting’s supporters have also told him he needs to be ready to go. thetimes.com/article/a9d355…

@DPJHodges Surely his evidence is pretty important? He wasn't involved in conversations about the appt, he wasn't even told discussions were taking place, he was told the decision had already been made, he was told DV might not be necessary... And it's only 9.15am!

Barton confirms the Cabinet Office took the initial view Mandelson did not need to be vetted at all.

@AaronBastani It's not even an item on the BBC radio news 🤷🏻‍♀️

How is this guy still the Prime Minister? Boris Johnson went for less.

@alexwickham It seems incredibly important!

Little tells the committee they should seek evidence from former foreign office security director Ian Collard to clear up the circumstances of his verbal briefing to Robbins (This is really in the weeds but ultimately the rights and wrongs may come down to that)

New: Cat Little, cabinet office permanent secretary, disputes Olly Robbins’ evidence to the foreign affairs select committee Little says the Cabinet Office did NOT try to avoid Mandelson getting DV as Robbins claimed Robbins told the committee the Cabinet Office’s position was that Mandelson did not need to undergo vetting Little says she can produce an audit trail showing in fact there was a debate between security officials and the Cabinet Office advised the Foreign Office that Mandelson SHOULD undergo DV vetting And she says the question was brought up by the Foreign Office

@alexwickham So if no one had suggested that Mandelson be appointed imagine how much important work all these civil servants could be doing? What an enormous waste of time and money

@alexwickham Who's he?

Emily Thornberry says she has also asked Ian Collard to give evidence

@alexwickham I'm finding this quite interesting but why aren't we using the phrase "this has become a distraction" which ministers often use when resigning?

@PippaCrerar @breeallegretti 👀

EXCL: Morgan McSweeney, the prime minister’s former chief of staff, has been summoned before the foreign affairs select committee. 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. It is highly unusual for No 10 chiefs of staff to appear before Commons committees – even after they have left post – and the session is likely to be an explosive one. theguardian.com/politics/2026/…

@DPJHodges Who?

I'm told the Foreign Affairs select committee is seeking to call Philip Barton to give evidence.

@psycheureka Can you have both though? I have a friend with a diagnosis who seems to have both elements quite strongly

To go deeper into PTSD phenotypes, the neurobiology of hyperarousal vs dissociation, and how this shapes assessment, staging, and treatment planning, explore the PTSD & Complex PTSD Curriculum inside The Academy: psychscene.co/3QeFwXh

Not all PTSD reflects the same neurobiological pattern. Some presentations are predominantly hyperaroused. Others are predominantly dissociative.  This distinction has direct clinical implications:🧵👇

@Kevin_Maguire When will they go public?

“He’s fucked Kev. It’s done.” Message from Labour MP watching Olly Robbins. The “He” is, of course, Keir Starmer.

@PippaCrerar We need to know how the recommendation went from "no" to "it's borderline" below it for to Robins

A reminder: Olly Robbins made his decision to give Peter Mandelson clearance without seeing the UKSV vetting form he overturned - or even knowing the details. This is UKSV form - as we revealed the two red boxes were ticked for Mandelson. Astonishing that Robbins didn’t know.

@PippaCrerar Starmers gotta go

🔥Oliver Robbins reveals that No 10 tried to get Matthew Doyle, Keir Starmer's former director of comms, a posting as an ambassador in March 2025. He was asked under "strict instruction" not to discuss the issue with David Lammy, then foreign secretary "I found it very hard to think how I would explain to the office what the credentials of Matthew were to be in an important head of mission role when I was in danger of making very senior, very experienced diplomats leave the office. "It was, to be honest, hard to find something that I thought might be suitable but in but I also felt quite uncomfortable about it." Lord Doyle, awarded a peerage by Starmer after leaving No 10, was suspended from the Labour whip in the Lords after it emerged he had campaigned for a friend charged with possessing indecent images of children.

@Steven_Swinford Starmers fucked. Much deserved

Olly Robbins' bombshell evidence so far: * The Cabinet Office suggested there was no need to vet Mandelson *at all* * No 10 applied 'constant pressure' on Mandelson to approve Mandelson's appointment and took a 'dismissive' attitude to vetting * Mandelson was given access to the FCDO building, to low classification IT and to 'higher classification briefings' before he was granted security clearance * No 10 showed **no interest** in the actual vetting. The entire focus was on getting Mandelson to Washington as quickly as possible

@broseph_stalin Can anyone explain why that was meant to be funny?

“To us he’s just … Peter” (chortle chortle)

@mancunianmedic Wow!

@SamCoatesSky Also bloody obvious!

🔥NEW - buried in the bundle of documents from the Humble Address Keir Starmer was advised by the cabinet secretary Simon Case to do security clearance BEFORE appointment but ignored the suggestion. Case said (If you want a political appointment) "you should give us the name of the person you would like to appoint and we will develop a plan for them to acquire the necessary security clearances and do due diligence on any potential Conflicts of Interest or other issues of which you should be aware *before* confirming you choice" Which feels quite material .....

@Steven_Swinford No one cares anymore. He should have the dignity to be quiet for 2 weeks then resign on 8th May. Airport he'll go then?

Which Keir Starmer will we get in the Commons today? What I'm hearing is that it won't be the Starmer of February 5, when he used a press conference in Hastings to offer an unmitigated apology to victims and make a series of apologies Instead we're going to get angry Starmer. The PM is furious that he wasn't told by Robbins and will make that very, very clear He will 'set out the facts' - what does that actually mean? His central argument will be that there was no legal bar to stop Robbins from 'sensibly flagging' the initial issues with Mandelson vetting His failure to do so, he will claim, shows a failure of judgement, hence he has been sacked But by the same token allies of Robbins can point to the fact that there were significant legal barriers to informing Starmer The fact it took Cat Little, perm sec at the Cabinet Office, and Antonia Romeo, the Cab Sec, three weeks to get the legal basis to inform Starmer tells you that. This was not straightforward, and was press unprecedented territory They can also point to ministers saying in the Commons that the national security vetting process is 'rightly independent' of the government There is a world in which both Starmer and Robbins are right. Starmer can argue he should have been told, and that the failure to do so initially and then subsequently when he stated that Robbins had clearance represents a severe misjudgement Robbins can argue that by the letter of the law there was no requirement for him to do so I suspect it will be impossible to form a definitive judgement over who was right, and who was wrong after the next 48 hours Either way it is a hugely challenging situation for both men

@ShippersUnbound So Starmer has lied?

🚨NEW: * Vetting led to Mandelson agreeing ‘mitigations’ to deal with security concerns * He was not allowed unsupervised access to former clients * All this was agreed and known about by Downing Street = no need for Robbins to block security clearance spectator.com/article/mandel…

@maitlis Wait, he wasn't asked about Epstein? Why?

We know from Mandelson he wasn’t asked about Epstein. And it is extraordinary he didn’t volunteer it when the open question came but it seems like he didn’t. It’s entirely possible that others - friends / family that were part of the vetting process DID. There are three levels of vetting. Regular - enhanced - and then a higher echelon for the serious top spooks. What we know now is that he wasn’t passed for “enhanced “. 🧵 3

A quick thread on the #Mandelson saga: - from a source who has been at the heart of the vetting process - Developed vetting is a long and complex process. It involves written evidence , a long questionnaire , conversations with family and friends. The main interview itself can take half a day .. at the end 🧵 ..1