Welcome back. Prior to the holidays, Keir Starmer had intended to use the initial days back after the parliamentary break to focus on ministers' efforts to bring down the cost of living. He set out this argument yesterday in a piece where he cited steps including plans to reduce utility costs. Unfortunately, Starmer’s cost of living media push has been blown out of the news agenda by Donald Trump, and his distinct approach to guaranteeing his voters get access to affordable power.
No one in mainstream UK politics seems very keen on adopting the Trump approach – which is probably good news for Norway.
But there is a heated discussion under way about what the UK government should be prepared to say about the American action to abduct the Venezuelan president, and replace him with someone expected to be more compliant with American interests, particularly in relation to the nation's petroleum sector.
The Prime Minister has refused to censure the American intervention, and the government has dodged questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as legal. Recently, European Union members except one nation issued a joint statement which, while not overtly critical, did stress the value of international law, and by implication accuse Trump of ignoring it. It said:
The European Union urge calm and restraint by all parties, to avoid a worsening and to ensure a peaceful solution to the crisis.
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 special duty to defend those standards, as a pillar of the international security architecture.
The migration minister, was conducting an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was declining to say the Venezuelan leader's removal violated international law because he was worried of antagonising Trump, the minister replied:
Not at all. The British government is, and will, be in discussions with the US administration. 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, the chair of the Commons foreign affairs committee (and a ex- 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 area of control.
Questioned about Starmer refusing to say that Trump was in violation of international law, Thornberry said, because the PM was in government, he had to balance “multiple factors”. But she was in a separate situation because she was not a minister, she said. She went on:
In the end there is no getting away from it. This is not a legal action.
The Prime Minister may well want to hear what the reasoning is from the American government. I can get in front of us and say I cannot think of anything that could be a proper justification.
Here is the schedule for the day.
10am: The Scottish first minister, gives a address in Glasgow. The Scottish Labour leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving talks, at mid-morning and lunchtime respectively. All the party heads are gearing up to the Holyrood elections in May.
Morning: Keir Starmer is on a visit in Berkshire where he is scheduled to speak to the press.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.
2.30pm: The home secretary, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: Yvette Cooper, is anticipated to give a statement to MPs about the ongoing situation.
