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.
Gannon Ken Van Dyke used his access to classified information to make money on prediction platform Polymarket, which allows users to make bets on real-life global events.
He allegedly bet $33,034 (£24,538) on the Venezuelan leader being captured by US forces in January, the federal prosecutor's office in New York said.
Maduro was brought to New York to face drug trafficking charges and has pleaded not guilty.
Van Dyke, an active duty soldier stationed at Fort Bragg, North Carolina, made more than $409,000 (£354,817) as a result, an unsealed indictment alleges.
The US Department of Justice said Van Dyke made 13 bets between 27 December 2025 and 26 January 2026, the last being hours before the overnight capture.
Van Dyke, 38, has been charged with unlawful use of confidential government information for personal gain, theft of nonpublic government information, commodities fraud, wire fraud, and making an unlawful monetary transaction, according to the indictment.
He could face years in prison.
Authorities said he "participated in the planning and execution of the US military operation to capture Nicolas Maduro".
An image uploaded to his Google account showed him in military fatigues and carrying a rifle on the USS Iwo Jima, just hours after Maduro was transported to the United States on the ship, prosecutors alleged in the indictment.
Three days after Maduro's capture, Van Dyke asked Polymarket to delete his account, "falsely claiming that he had lost access to the email address", federal authorities said.
After collecting his winnings, Van Dyke sent most of the money to a foreign cryptocurrency vault, the Justice Department said.
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which regulates Polymarket, said it was also hitting Van Dyke with civil charges.
"Insider trading has no place on Polymarket," the company added in a post on X.
"Today's arrest is proof the system works."
Asked about the incident, US President Donald Trump said he does not like the concept of betting.
He said it was "like Pete Rose betting on his own team", in reference to the Major League Baseball coach who was banned for wagering money on sides he was managing.
"The whole world, unfortunately, has become somewhat of a casino," Trump added when asked more generally about betting markets and bets placed on major geopolitical events.
"I'm not happy with any of that stuff," Trump continued.
Read more from Sky News:
Ex-policeman stripped of UK citizenship speaks to Sky News
World Cup final tickets go on sale for $2.3m
FBI Director Kash Patel said the indictment "makes clear no one is above the law, and this FBI will do whatever it takes to defend the homeland and safeguard our nation's secrets."
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.
Kofi Offeh, who crowned himself King Atehene, set up the self-proclaimed Kingdom of Kubala with Jean Gasho - who called herself Queen Nandi.
The couple were later joined by "handmaiden" Kaura Taylor, who went by the name Asnat.
Local media reported Mr Offeh's arrival at Ghana's Accra International Airport on 22 April.
The group made headlines across the globe when they set up a camp in woodland near Jedburgh in May last year, claiming to be reoccupying land that was stolen from their ancestors 400 years ago.
The group's social media accounts, which included videos of them dancing, singing and chanting, garnered tens of thousands of followers on TikTok and Facebook.
In September, the owners of the land took legal action to evict them, on the basis they had "no right of title" to it.
A sheriff issued a warrant for their removal and they were eventually evicted - only to set up a new camp in a neighbouring plot of land owned by Scottish Borders Council.
Read more from Sky News:
New image of what missing boy could look like now 50 years on
Ex-policeman stripped of UK citizenship speaks to Sky News
Following further legal action, the group was eventually removed from this second camp in October when sheriff officers, police and officers from Immigration Enforcement swooped in on the site.
At the time the Home Office confirmed a Ghanaian man and an American woman had been arrested on suspicion of immigration offences.
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."