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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.