Welcome back. Before Christmas, Keir Starmer had planned to use the initial days back after the holiday recess to focus on ministers' actions to reduce the living expenses. He set out this case recently in an article where he cited steps including plans to cut energy bills. However, Starmer’s cost of living PR blitz has been blown out of the headlines by Donald Trump, and his entirely different strategy to guaranteeing his voters get access to affordable power.
Not a single figure in British political life seems very keen on adopting the Trump approach – which is probably good news for Norway.
But there is an intense debate ongoing about what the UK government should be willing to say about the American action to abduct the Venezuelan president, and install a successor with someone anticipated to be more cooperative with American interests, particularly in relation to the nation's petroleum sector.
The Prime Minister has refused to censure the US action, and the government has dodged questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as legal. Recently, all EU states apart from one nation issued a collective declaration which, while not overtly critical, did emphasise the importance of international law, and by inference suggest Trump of disregarding it. It said:
EU members urge restraint and caution by all actors, to avoid a worsening and to secure a peaceful resolution to the crisis.
The Union reiterates 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 uphold those principles, 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 violated international law because he was afraid of upsetting Trump, Tapp responded:
Absolutely not. The British government are and will remain in discussions with the Americans. And it’s for the Americans to explain the legal basis for the action that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also consulting with key partners examining the legal aspect of this.
But recently, in an interview 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 sphere of influence.
Questioned about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in violation of global rules, Thornberry said, because the PM was in office, he had to balance “multiple factors”. But she was in a separate situation because she was not a minister, she said. She added:
Ultimately there is no escaping the fact. This is not a legal action.
[Starmer] may well wish to listen to what the justification is from the US administration. I can state before us and say I literally think of anything that could be a proper justification.
Here is the agenda for the day.
10am: John Swinney, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish Labour leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving talks, at mid-morning and lunchtime in turn. 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: The Prime Minister's office holds a lobby briefing.
2.30pm: The home secretary, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is expected to give a statement to MPs about Venezuela.
