Welcome back. Before Christmas, the Labour leader had intended to use the first week back after the parliamentary break to focus on government actions to reduce the living expenses. He set out this argument yesterday in an article where he cited steps including plans to reduce energy bills. However, Starmer’s economic media push has been overshadowed of the headlines by Donald Trump, and his entirely different strategy to ensuring supporters get access to affordable power.
Not a single figure in British political life seems particularly eager on embracing the American method – which is probably good news for Norway.
But there is an intense debate ongoing about what the UK government should be prepared to say about the American action to abduct the Venezuelan president, and replace him with someone anticipated to be more cooperative with US demands, particularly in relation to the nation's petroleum sector.
Keir Starmer has refused to censure the US action, and the administration has dodged questions about whether or not it considered what happened as lawful. Last night, European Union members apart from Hungary issued a joint statement which, while not overtly critical, did stress the value of global rules, and by inference accuse Trump of disregarding it. It said:
The European Union call for calm and restraint by all parties, to avoid a worsening and to ensure a peaceful solution to the situation.
The EU reiterates that, under any conditions, the tenets of the rules-based order and the United Nations charter must be upheld. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to uphold those standards, as a cornerstone of the global security framework.
Mike Tapp, was doing an series of media appearances this morning and, when asked if Starmer was declining to say the Venezuelan leader's removal broke international law because he was afraid of antagonising Trump, Tapp responded:
Absolutely not. The British government is, and will, be in conversations with the Americans. And it’s for the United States to lay out the juridical rationale for the action that they’ve taken. And we’re also consulting with close allies looking at the juridical dimension of this.
But recently, in an appearance on the BBC, Emily Thornberry (and a ex- shadow attorney general), said she was deeply worried about the way Trump seems to think, like Russia’s Vladimir Putin and China’s Xi Jinping, that he could do what he wanted in his sphere of influence.
Questioned about Starmer refusing to say that Trump was in breach of international law, she said, because the PM was in office, he had to balance “a number of considerations”. But she was in a separate situation because she was not a minister, she said. She went on:
In the end there is no escaping the fact. This is an unlawful move.
The Prime Minister may well want to listen to what the justification is from the American government. I can get in front of us and say I literally think of anything that could be a proper justification.
Here is the schedule for the day.
10am: John Swinney, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving speeches, at mid-morning and 1pm in turn. All the party heads are gearing up to the Scottish parliament vote in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister is on a tour in Berkshire where he is due to make comments to the press.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.
2.30pm: Shabana Mahmood, takes queries in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is anticipated to give a update to MPs about the ongoing situation.
