Welcome back. Prior to the holidays, Keir Starmer had planned to use the initial days back after the holiday recess to focus on government actions to reduce the living expenses. He set out this case yesterday in an article where he referenced steps including proposals to reduce energy bills. Unfortunately, Starmer’s economic PR blitz has been overshadowed of the headlines by Donald Trump, and his entirely different approach to ensuring supporters receive affordable power.
No one in mainstream UK politics appears very keen on embracing the American method – which is probably a positive development 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 install a successor with someone anticipated to be more cooperative with US demands, especially in relation to the nation's petroleum sector.
Keir Starmer has refused to criticise the American intervention, and the administration has dodged questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as lawful. Last night, all EU states except Hungary issued a joint statement which, while not overtly critical, did stress the importance of international law, and by implication suggest Trump of disregarding it. It said:
The European Union urge restraint and restraint by all actors, to avoid escalation and to secure a peaceful resolution to the crisis.
The Union 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 particular responsibility to defend those standards, as a pillar of the global security framework.
The migration minister, was doing an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was refusing to say the Venezuelan leader's removal broke international law because he was worried of antagonising Trump, the minister replied:
Absolutely not. The British government is, and will, be in conversations with the Americans. And it’s for the Americans to explain the legal basis 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 former shadow attorney general), said she was deeply worried about the way Trump seems to think, like the Russian leader and the Chinese president, that he could do what he wanted in his area of control.
Asked about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in violation of global rules, she 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 minister, she said. She went on:
Ultimately there is no escaping the fact. This is an unlawful move.
The Prime Minister may well want to hear what the justification 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 agenda for the day.
10am: The Scottish first minister, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving talks, at mid-morning and lunchtime respectively. All the leaders are gearing up to the Holyrood elections in May.
Morning: Keir Starmer is on a visit in Berkshire where he is scheduled to make comments to the media.
11.30am: The Prime Minister's office 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 Venezuela.
