Welcome back. Before Christmas, Keir Starmer had planned to use the first week back after the parliamentary break to focus on ministers' efforts to reduce the cost of living. He set out this argument yesterday in a piece where he cited steps including proposals to reduce utility costs. Unfortunately, his economic PR blitz has been overshadowed of the news agenda by Donald Trump, and his entirely different approach to ensuring his voters receive affordable power.
Not a single figure in British political life seems very keen on adopting the American method – which is probably good news for Norway.
But there is a heated discussion under way about what the UK government should be willing to say about Trump’s decision to abduct the Venezuelan president, and install a successor with someone expected to be more cooperative with US demands, especially in regarding the nation's petroleum sector.
The Prime Minister has refused to censure the US action, and the government has avoided questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as legal. Last night, all EU states except one nation issued a joint statement which, while not overtly critical, did emphasise the value of global rules, and by implication suggest Trump of disregarding it. It said:
The European Union urge restraint and restraint by all actors, to avoid a worsening and to ensure a peaceful resolution to the situation.
The EU reiterates that, under any conditions, the principles of the rules-based order and the UN Charter must be respected. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to defend those standards, as a cornerstone of the global security framework.
Mike Tapp, was conducting an series of media appearances this morning and, when asked if Starmer was refusing to say the Venezuelan leader's removal violated global statutes because he was worried of antagonising Trump, the minister replied:
Not at all. UK ministers is, and will, be in discussions with the US administration. And it’s for the United States to explain the legal basis for the action that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also consulting with close allies examining the legal aspect of this.
But last night, in an interview on the BBC, Emily Thornberry (and a ex- shadow attorney general), said she was very concerned about the way Trump seems to think, like Russia’s Vladimir Putin and the Chinese president, that he could do what he wanted in his area of control.
Asked about Starmer refusing to say that Trump was in breach of international law, Thornberry said, because the PM was in office, he had to weigh up “multiple factors”. But she was in a separate situation because she was not a government member, she said. She went on:
Ultimately there is no getting away from it. This is an unlawful move.
The Prime Minister may well want to hear what the justification is from the US administration. I can state before everyone and say I cannot think of anything that could be a valid excuse.
Here is the schedule for the day.
10am: John Swinney, gives a address in Glasgow. The Scottish Labour leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving talks, at mid-morning and 1pm respectively. All the leaders are looking ahead to the Holyrood elections in May.
Morning: Keir Starmer is on a tour in Berkshire where he is scheduled to make comments to the press.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.
2.30pm: The home secretary, takes queries in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is expected to give a statement to MPs about the ongoing situation.
