Welcome back. Before Christmas, the Labour leader had planned to use the first week back after the parliamentary break to focus on ministers' actions to reduce the living expenses. He set out this case yesterday in a piece where he referenced measures including plans to cut energy bills. However, Starmer’s cost of living media push has been overshadowed of the news agenda by the former US president, and his distinct strategy to ensuring his voters receive affordable power.
No one in mainstream UK politics seems particularly eager on adopting the American method – which is probably good news for Norway.
But there is an intense debate 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 American interests, particularly in relation to the nation's petroleum sector.
Keir Starmer has refused to criticise the US action, and the government has dodged questions about whether or not it considered what happened as lawful. Recently, European Union members except Hungary issued a joint statement which, while not overtly critical, did stress the importance of international law, and by implication accuse Trump of ignoring it. It said:
EU members urge calm and restraint by all parties, to prevent escalation and to secure a peaceful resolution to the situation.
The Union recalls that, under any conditions, the tenets of the rules-based order and the UN Charter must be upheld. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to uphold those principles, as a cornerstone of the global security framework.
Mike Tapp, was doing an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was refusing to say the Venezuelan leader's removal broke global statutes because he was afraid of upsetting Trump, Tapp responded:
Not at all. UK ministers is, and will, be in conversations with the Americans. And it’s for the Americans to explain the juridical rationale for the steps that they’ve taken. And we’re also consulting with close allies examining the juridical dimension of this.
But recently, in an appearance on the BBC, the chair of the Commons foreign affairs committee (and a former shadow attorney general), said she was deeply worried about the way Trump seems to think, like the Russian leader and China’s Xi Jinping, that he could do what he wanted in his sphere of influence.
Questioned about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in violation of international law, she said, because the PM was in government, he had to balance “multiple factors”. But she was in a different position because she was not a government member, she said. She added:
Ultimately there is no escaping the fact. This is an unlawful move.
The Prime Minister may well wish to listen to what the reasoning is from the US administration. I can state before everyone and say I literally think of anything that could be a valid excuse.
Here is the schedule for the day.
10am: The Scottish first minister, gives a address in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving speeches, at mid-morning and lunchtime in turn. All the party heads are gearing up to the Holyrood elections in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister is on a tour in Berkshire where he is due to make comments to the press.
11.30am: The Prime Minister's office holds a press briefing.
2.30pm: Shabana Mahmood, takes queries in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: Yvette Cooper, is anticipated to give a statement to MPs about Venezuela.
