On Wednesday 23 April, Keir Starmer responded to his critics at Prime Minister’s Questions (PMQs). Several of his rivals probed him to establish if he’d previously misled Parliament on the subject of Peter Mandelson’s vetting. Because Starmer is so ruthlessly incompetent, it seems he may have misled Parliament AGAIN in the course of trying to defend himself:

It’s quite incredible. In the PMQs session where Starmer attacked Kemi Badenoch for saying he mislead the House Keir Starmer again mislead the House. https://t.co/5D7DDAT9W6

— (((Dan Hodges))) (@DPJHodges) April 22, 2026

And to be clear, misleading Parliament is grounds for a member of government to resign.

Starmer: misleading from the front

In the clip above, commentator Dan Hodges says:

A minister told me there is; what they said was there is a bit of a panic on in Number 10 this evening because there’s now a feeling that Keir Starmer actually misled the House in one of the answers he gave to Kemi Badenoch.

So if you go back and check the transcript – it’s at the point where he was talking about the fact that pressure – whether pressure had been put on Ollie Robbins. Now, the way it was described to me was that Starmer diverted from his briefing book and came out with a statement which says absolutely no pressure whatsoever had been put on Olly Robbins or any other civil servants. Now I think you were probably watching, I was watching, I was a bit surprised by that.

People have gone back and checked what Olly Robbins actually said, and they’ve put that against what Keir Starmer said. And the people raising concerns are right. It’s impossible to square what Starmer said with what Robbins said.

Struggling to see how Starmer’s claim today at Prime Minister’s Questions that “no pressure existed whatsoever” in relation to the Mandelson vetting is compatible with Sir Olly Robbins’ evidence to Parliament. pic.twitter.com/R2wqeoHqxv

— Matthew Stadlen (@MatthewStadlen) April 22, 2026

Hodges also noted that Robbins’ predecessor Phillip Barton will testify next week, stating:

my understanding from the same ministerial sources, Downing Street believes he will explicitly say he was put under pressure as well. Now, if he does that, then you’ve got Keir Starmer bang to right misleading the House of Commons.

Lawyer Mike Gardner said:

No idea why Starmer thought he could get away with selectively quoting from Robbins.

Robbins made clear there was serious pressure from No.10 to approve Mandelson.

Starmer turned that on its head. Mad. https://t.co/h2TJ3rggul

— Mike Gardner (@mikegardner_wb) April 22, 2026

The most straightforward answer to this seems to be that Starmer simply struggles with the truth. As we’ve covered again and again, dishonesty is a constant with him.

Suspended Labour MP and Starmer critic Karl Turner, meanwhile, said the following:

That’s NOT what Sir. Olly Robbins told the select committee. pic.twitter.com/S0e9StYbUJ

— Karl Turner MP (@KarlTurnerMP) April 22, 2026

And again

There’s also a suggestion that Starmer may have misled Parliament twice at PMQs. As Ava-Santina from New Statesman highlighted:

Detail here where Starmer may indeed have misled the House…

Sir Julian Lewis: Did PM ask Robbins why he overruled the security vetters

Starmer replies that he did, but didn’t accept his explanation.

Linked below, it seems he did NOT ask him. pic.twitter.com/smXOaVfGcE

— Ava-Santina (@AvaSantina) April 22, 2026

Since posting the above, Santina has said:

Being told Robbins *was* asked to explain his handling to Starmer before sacking.

— Ava-Santina (@AvaSantina) April 22, 2026

Conservative MP Aphra Brandreth noted that she put this question to Olly Robbins:

The PM told us he spoke to Oliver Robbins, asked him why he overruled security vetters, didn’t accept his explanation, so sacked him

I put this to Sir Oliver during the @CommonsForeign

Media reports now suggest the PM may not have asked him the question. We need clarity on this https://t.co/Un6GPy3Mjt pic.twitter.com/SsH6Vw4hxA

— Aphra Brandreth (@AphraBrandreth) April 22, 2026

This was how Robbins responded in the clip above when asked if Starmer had asked him what happened:

It’s a very legitimate question, Ms. Brander. The reason I wrote to the committee ahead of this hearing on this matter is I’m afraid, given I’m in unknown territory, honestly, for me personally, about the HR position I am in and what this means for my family, I must remain quiet on that until my advisors have told me what the appropriate thing to do is about it.

Bad, bad, not good

At this point we’re going to remind you that regardless of anything else, Starmer hired Peter Mandelson despite knowing that he’d:

• Twice resigned from government in disgrace.
• Maintained a relationship with the convicted paedophile Jeffrey Epstein.

It’s good that the establishment seem to be catching up, because we’ve been saying he needs to go for some time now.

Featured image via Guardian

By Willem Moore

From Canary via This RSS Feed.