Welcome back. Before Christmas, Keir Starmer had planned to use the initial days back after the holiday recess to highlight government actions to reduce the living expenses. He set out this argument yesterday in an article where he cited steps including plans to cut energy bills. Unfortunately, his cost of living media push has been overshadowed of the news agenda by Donald Trump, and his distinct strategy to guaranteeing supporters get access to cheap energy.
No one in British political life appears very keen on embracing the American method – which is likely good news for Norway.
But there is a heated discussion ongoing about what the UK government should be prepared 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 regarding the nation's petroleum sector.
The Prime Minister has declined to criticise the American intervention, and the administration has avoided questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as legal. Last night, all EU states except one nation issued a collective declaration which, while not explicitly condemning, did stress the importance of global rules, and by inference suggest Trump of disregarding it. It said:
The European Union call for calm and restraint by all parties, to prevent escalation and to secure a peaceful solution to the situation.
The EU reiterates that, under any conditions, the tenets of the rules-based order and the UN Charter must be respected. Permanent 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 conducting 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 afraid of antagonising Trump, Tapp responded:
Absolutely not. The British government are and will remain in conversations with the Americans. And it’s for the United States to explain the legal basis for the steps that they’ve taken. And we’re also talking with key partners looking at the juridical dimension of this.
But recently, in an appearance on the BBC, Emily Thornberry (and a former shadow attorney general), said she was very concerned 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 global rules, Thornberry 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 government member, she said. She went on:
In the end 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 American government. I can get in front of everyone 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 address in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving speeches, at 10.30am and lunchtime respectively. All the leaders are looking ahead to the Scottish parliament vote in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister is on a visit in Berkshire where he is scheduled to speak to the media.
11.30am: The Prime Minister's office 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 Venezuela.
