The prime minister fired the former Foreign Office chief last week over his decision not to tell him Peter Mandelson had failed security vetting.

👉 Click here to listen to Electoral Dysfunction on your podcast app 👈

Speaking on Electoral Dysfunction, Baroness Harman said the move "has made the whole thing blow up".

"People in the party out in the country are thinking we wish he hadn't fired him, however much justification he had because he's put a nuclear bomb under the whole thing," she said.

"He wouldn't have had to do the statement in the House of Commons. We wouldn't have had all this evidence to the select committee if he hadn't had fired Olly Robbins."

"He could have done all the investigations and then possibly done due process of disciplining and firing Olly Robbins, but not actually a summary dismissal, which has made the whole thing blow up."

Baroness Harman added Mandelson was "clearly the wrong appointment and a dangerous appointment for the UK to be making".

Read more from Sky News:
World Cup final tickets go on sale for $2.3m each
Babies held aloft at funeral of father shot in Israeli settler attack

The row over Mandelson's vetting has consumed the government for the past week. The prime minister has claimed Sir Olly should have told him that UK Security Vetting (UKSV) had recommended against appointing Mandelson as UK ambassador to the US.

But Sir Olly says it was down to him, as head of the Foreign Office, to decide whether to give Mandelson security clearance - and that UKSV considered it a borderline case.

Sir Keir is once again facing a leadership crisis. All major political party leaders have called for him to resign, as have two backbench Labour MPs.

FIFA's official "resale/exchange marketplace" website for the match on 19 July shows four seats available for $2,299,998.85 (£1.7m).

Buying all four of those tickets for the showdown, at the MetLife Stadium in New Jersey, would set you back $9.2m (£6.8m).

A handful of other tickets in the same section, behind one of the goals, are also on sale for the comparatively bargain price of $16,098 (£11,953).

FIFA does not control the asking prices on the resale website, but takes a 15% fee from both the seller and buyer of such tickets - meaning it could, in theory, earn almost $600,000 from just one of the ticket sales. FIFA's cut is included in the asking price.

Read more
Everything you need to know about World Cup 2026
Italy rules out replacing Iran at World Cup
England stars concerned about pressure to speak out

Organisers have already faced criticism for the high prices of tickets for the tournament, which is being jointly hosted by Canada, Mexico, and the USA, and kicks off on 11 June.

Resale tickets for previous World Cups were capped at face value.

In response to the criticisms, in December FIFA introduced a small number of $60 (£45) cheaper tickets.

More than five million tickets have already been sold for this year's event, with the final phase of ticket sales opening earlier this week.

A FIFA spokesperson said: "FIFA has established a ticket sales and secondary market model that reflects standard ticket market practices for major sporting and entertainment events across the host countries.

"The applicable resale facilitation fees are aligned with industry standards across North American sports and entertainment sectors.

"FIFA's variable pricing ticketing approach aligns with industry trends across various sports and entertainment sectors, where price adaptations are made to optimise sales and attendance and ensure a fair market value for events."

Peers will have their 16th day and final debate on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill.

And after that, it's over - at least for now.

Politics Hub: Follow the latest

The bill would give people over 18 who are terminally ill, and in the final six months of their life, the ability to request assistance from a doctor to die.

MPs passed the bill back in June 2025 - but it's taken so long to go through the Lords that it's now run out of time.

So how did we end up here - and where could it go next?

Why assisted dying failed

The bill is a private members' bill, introduced by Labour MP Kim Leadbeater after she came top in a ballot of backbench MPs wanting to introduce their own draft laws.

MPs backed the bill in November 2024 by a margin of 55 votes, which dropped to 23 by the time of its final Commons vote last June.

In the Commons, critics accused Ms Leadbeater of not listening to their concerns. They also claimed the key change made to the bill - replacing the need for a High Court judge to sign off an assisted death application with a panel of a senior lawyer, a psychiatrist, and a social worker - made it less rigorous.

But Ms Leadbeater argued three panellists would have more expertise than a single judge, making the process safer - as well as the crisis in the courts system meaning there wouldn't be capacity to consider assisted dying applications.

The bill then went to the Lords, which began debating it last September. Progress has been slow. Unlike the Commons, the Lords is self-regulating, which means it can take as long as it wants to consider legislation.

Supporters accuse a handful of peers of talking for so long that time runs out. But critical peers fiercely deny they are purposefully obstructing the bill, and insist they are simply trying to improve what they think is a poorly designed piece of legislation.

The bill has to pass by the time the parliamentary session ends next week. It can't be carried over to the next session.

Lords are stuck on the third of five stages - and the bill would have to go back to the Commons to agree any changes.

It's been clear for a while that the bill wasn't going to make it in time - both sides accepted that in March.

A letter from almost 200 peers to MPs seen by Sky News has called it "a failure of the [Lords] to fulfil its constitutional function", adding that "it is now for the elected chamber to decide what should happen next".

But a different letter from over 60 opposing peers, also seen by Sky News, says the bill has failed because of "the refusal by its supporters to engage reasonably on the substance".

How assisted dying could be brought back

Campaigners might have failed to pass an assisted dying law this session, but they aren't planning to give up.

As Sky News has previously reported, supporters are planning to enlist some 200 MPs to attempt to bring the bill back into contention this summer.

The next private members' bill ballot is due to be held on 21 May. Supporters think they have 200 MPs who would be willing to reintroduce the bill if one of them is successful in the ballot.

They then plan to try and get it through the Commons quickly - potentially even by packing the committee with supporters, on the grounds that MPs have already scrutinised it.

And if they can't get it through using the ballot, supporters will seek to persuade the government to give it time to protect the authority of the democratically-elected Commons over the unelected Lords.

"This is not over," Ms Leadbeater said. "The issue is not going to go away just because of an undemocratic filibuster in the Lords. We will keep pushing for a safer, more compassionate law until parliament reaches a final decision."

If it passes the Commons, the bill would then head back to the Lords.

If it once again fails to pass the upper chamber in time, supporters think they can use a piece of procedure called the Parliament Act to get it through, regardless of whether peers back it.

That says the same bill, twice passed by MPs but rejected by peers in two consecutive sessions, becomes law anyway.

It's rarely used, only twice this century. Never before has it been used for a private members' bill - although officials have confirmed it could, in theory. But it would mean that no further changes could be made to the bill.

What will the opponents do?

Just like the bill's supporters, its critics aren't planning to give up their opposition either.

Sky News understands opponents don't believe it's inevitable the bill will become law in the next parliamentary session.

"This is a bad law and its sponsors have repeatedly refused to improve it," said Labour MP Meg Hillier, who opposes the bill. "After months of debate, it still lacks the necessary protections and safeguards for vulnerable and disabled people that the public demands."

Opponents say MPs, asked to vote for a bill they say is dangerous and can't be amended, might think again.

They continue to highlight opposition, including how all the professional medical colleges are against the bill - despite some of them not being against the principle of assisted dying.

Also on their list is claims the bill has become a distraction, and how assisted dying isn't a priority for the public. A recent poll by JL Partners found that 94% of respondents didn't list assisted dying as one of their priorities.

Critics also say supporters are using underhand tactics - packing the committee with supporters, threatening to force the bill through. Supporters, on the other hand, say critics have been unreasonable by blocking the bill.

This incarnation of the bill may be officially over today. But don't expect the war of words to die down any time soon.

Meta said it was laying off about 8,000 workers, or about 10% of its workforce, in a bid to make efficiency savings as it ramps up investment.

Around 6,000 job vacancies were also to be left unfilled, it confirmed.

Money latest: Big change to compensation if your broadband goes down

Meta had previously told investors that spending would top $160bn during 2026 - up from just shy of $120bn last year.

The company is competing with rivals to hire AI experts and, at the same time, is facing huge bills for data centres to power the technological development.

The announcement marks the continuation of a job cut trend across major US tech firms in recent years.

Microsoft said it was offering a voluntary redundancy programme, which the AP news agency reported would affect about 8,750 people within its core US workforce.

The number equates to 7% of its total staff.

Sky's US partner CNBC had earlier reported the existence of the voluntary scheme, which is due to be rolled out early next month.

The news provider said staff were alerted to it in a memo from the company's chief people officer, Amy Coleman.

"Our hope is that this program gives those eligible the choice to take that next step on their own terms, with generous company support," she wrote, according to CNBC.

There's a bank of cameras, cars honking as they drive past and plenty of handshakes following the leader of the Greens as he walks up the high street in Levenshulme.

Politics Hub: Follow the latest

He's here to talk about rejuvenating the high street in this pocket of Manchester that turned from red to green in the Gorton and Denton by-election in February. It caused a not-so-minor political earthquake on the left and Polanski is hoping to shake up a lot more in May's elections.

He tells me, as we walk down the high street in the sunshine, that Labour is going to have a "disastrous" set of local elections and that he thinks Keir Starmer will be out of Number 10 in the next couple of months.

"I don't see how he survives this set of elections.

"I just feel like there's been a sense it hasn't happened for a long time because there was no obvious successor, but you can't keep going like that.

"At some point you have to say it can't get any worse, and actually I think there's a general consensus that his poll ratings have bottomed out as low as they can go, to the point that may be the Mandelson stuff doesn't affect him as it should."

'Greens will replace Labour'

In London, Polanski could potentially win four boroughs that have long been Labour - Hackney, where Polanski lives, Lambeth, Lewisham and Waltham Forest, according to a YouGov MRP poll. Across England, Polanski's Greens are expected to gain hundreds of council seats.

He tells me the Greens are going to replace Labour. When I ask him who, should Starmer be forced out of office, he'd find the most difficult Labour character to face as his successor, that it would be Andy Burnham. "We'd be in a similar political space, but as a member of this country, I'd much rather have someone more progressive leading the government than Keir Starmer."

Got a question for Beth Rigby about this or any other story? Ask them here

But for all the talk of a green wave, Polanski's Greens seem a very long way from replacing Labour. Rather like Corbyn's Labour, Polanski's eco-populism brand has energised younger, urban and ethnic minority voters.

Party membership has grown from 50,000 when he was running for party leader to over 225,000 in the eight months since he's had the job. It's impressive on any measure.

The question for Polanski, as it was for Farage's Reform as it began the transition from being a party of protest to one seriously vying for power, is how to put together policies and people to appeal to a wider group of voters: when I sat down with him in the local park in Levenshulme, I wanted to know how the Green Party bridges that gap.

For now, the Greens seem to be following a 50-seat strategy in a general election, pitching itself as an alternative left party, rather than building a broader coalition by picking off voters in more traditionally Conservative areas - Herefordshire, Rossendale, Amber Valley - concerned about the environment - the type of coalition of different voters a party needs to win marginal seats.

When I ask Polanski what he's going to do to appeal to more voters, he tells me that part of it is the way the party communicates with voters. "They all know we want to protect the environment and tackle the climate crisis, that's never going to change. But I think people are less aware about our policies to tax multimillionaires and billionaires. To really tackle the fact that people have low wages and high bills."

Where he is less comfortable is talking about defence. Polling shows that over one in two voters don't trust the Greens on defence - and when I ask Polanski about his approach to NATO, he veers away from the party policy to remain a member of NATO, he gives me a much more nuanced answer when I ask him if he wants to leave the security alliance. "I want us to create an alternative alliance to have that discussion."

When I press him again about wanting to leave, he tells me: "Not immediately, once we get an alternative alliance with our European neighbours, so we can ensure our military, our security, then to start working towards that alternative alliance."

His argument is that NATO is not working because Donald Trump is being "deliberately antagonistic" and that European allies should build an alternative alliance.

But on what those timeframes of exiting NATO and building this new alliance with European countries (already in NATO) are, he's less clear. It doesn't seem to me to be very thought-through policy on a matter of such importance, as Western allies face wars on two fronts - in Ukraine and the Middle East.

The Polanski factor

There's also Polanski himself. The leader undoubtedly has huge appeal, knows how to work social media in the attention economy and is a fluent communicator. But here are questions around his leadership and judgement.

This week, he provoked alarm among the Jewish community when he said of the horrific wave of anti-semitic attacks: "There's a conversation to be had about whether it's a perception of unsafety or whether it's actual unsafety, but neither are acceptable."

That phrase - the "perception of unsafety" - was seized upon by many in the Jewish community as somehow downplaying the rise of antisemitism Jewish people are experiencing and the way the community is feeling. When I put that to Polanski, he told me: "Neither are acceptable, and that's why I said that. And look, this context is I'm one of five Jewish people who have ever led a political party in British history."

Read more from Sky News:
World Cup final tickets go on sale for $2.3m each
Babies held aloft at funeral of father shot in Israeli settler attack

When I also put it to Polanski that for some talking of a "perception of unsafety" was somehow downplaying these attacks, he said: "Those people would be taking me out of context and doing it for their own particular political reasons. What I think I'm saying is very clear, that both arsons and dressing up an artificial image of a Jewish leader dressed as a Nazi is also unacceptable. One is actually making Jewish people unsafe, and one is a perception of unsafety.

"Of course, as a Jewish man, I care about antisemitism."

Keir Starmer said Polanski's comments were "disgraceful" as antisemitism was "very real" and "felt throughout the whole community".

On his judgment, one other thing I could not shake was why he did an interview with the Sun newspaper in 2013, claiming he could hypnotise a woman into having bigger breasts. It was a long time ago, when he was 30 years old and before he was in politics - but when I dug out the article and read it, I found it such an odd thing to do and I wanted to understand why he did it.

First, he told me the article was nonsense, but when I pushed back and pointed out that there were direct quotes from him in the article and he endorsed it a few days after it was published on a BBC radio show, he then admits "it was the Sun journalist's idea and I should have said no".

"I wasn't a politician; I went along with the idea. I shouldn't have done it and that's what I've apologised for," he added.

When I ask him what he says to those voters looking at this and women who might find it uncomfortable, he tells me: "I do appreciate you asking me the question because ultimately I do want to speak to those women, but that article doesn't represent me. It was a wrong thing to do to go along with a Sun journalist, that's why I apologised, that is why I'll continue to apologise. But I think when people look at my record as a politician, not just as leader of the Green Party, but the last few years as an elected member of the London Assembly, I've got a strong record of working with women on women's rights.

"I understand how people can look at the history and go 'that was strange'. I often think about what Tony Benn said, which is 'I don't care where you came from, I care where you're going' and I stand by that apology, but I think most people are interested right now in what I and the Green Party are doing."

Polanski tells me, for the record, he now doesn't believe that you can enlarge women's breasts through hypnotherapy. But what he does believe is that the Green Party is going to grow rapidly in the coming weeks and months. But with more success, more seats, more power, comes more scrutiny. Is Polanski and his party really ready for that?

This interview is part of a series that Sky News will be conducting with party leaders ahead of the May elections.