Welcome back. Before Christmas, Keir Starmer had intended to use the initial days back after the parliamentary break to focus on ministers' actions to reduce the cost of living. He set out this argument yesterday in a piece where he referenced steps including proposals to reduce utility costs. Unfortunately, his economic PR blitz has been blown out of the news agenda by Donald Trump, and his distinct strategy to guaranteeing supporters receive cheap energy.
Not a single figure in British political life appears particularly eager on adopting the Trump approach – which is probably a positive development for other nations.
But there is a heated discussion ongoing about what the UK government should be willing to say about the American action to abduct the Venezuelan president, and replace him with someone anticipated to be more compliant with US demands, particularly in regarding the country’s oil industry.
The Prime Minister has declined to censure the US action, and the government has avoided questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as legal. Recently, all EU states except one nation issued a collective declaration which, while not explicitly condemning, did emphasise the importance of global rules, and by implication accuse Trump of disregarding it. It said:
The European Union urge calm and caution by all actors, to prevent a worsening and to secure a peaceful solution to the situation.
The EU recalls that, under any conditions, the principles of the rules-based order and the United Nations charter must be respected. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to uphold those principles, as a cornerstone of the international security architecture.
Mike Tapp, was doing an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was refusing to say the Venezuelan leader's removal violated global statutes because he was worried of upsetting Trump, the minister responded:
Absolutely not. The British government is, and will, be in discussions with the US administration. And it’s for the Americans to lay out the juridical rationale for the action that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also consulting with close allies looking at the legal aspect of this.
But last night, in an interview on the BBC, the chair of the Commons foreign affairs committee (and a ex- shadow attorney general), said she was very concerned 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 area of control.
Questioned about Starmer refusing to say that Trump was in breach of global rules, Thornberry said, because the PM was in office, he had to balance “multiple factors”. But she was in a different position because she was not a government member, she said. She went on:
In the end there is no getting away from it. This is an unlawful move.
[Starmer] may well wish to listen to what the justification is from the American government. I can state before us and say I literally think of anything that could be a valid excuse.
Here is the agenda for the day.
10am: John Swinney, gives a address in Glasgow. The Scottish Labour leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving talks, at 10.30am and 1pm respectively. 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 scheduled to speak to the press.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.
2.30pm: Shabana Mahmood, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: Yvette Cooper, is expected to give a statement to MPs about Venezuela.
