Welcome back. Before Christmas, Keir Starmer had intended to use the initial days back after the holiday recess to focus on ministers' actions to reduce the living expenses. He outlined this argument recently in a piece where he referenced 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 ensuring his voters get access to affordable power.
Not a single figure in mainstream UK politics seems particularly eager on embracing the Trump approach – 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 the American action to abduct Nicolás Maduro, 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 US action, and the government has avoided questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as lawful. Recently, European Union members apart from Hungary issued a collective declaration which, while not explicitly condemning, did emphasise the importance of international law, and by implication suggest Trump of ignoring it. It said:
EU members urge restraint and restraint by all parties, to prevent escalation and to ensure a peaceful resolution to the situation.
The Union recalls that, under all circumstances, the principles of the rules-based order and the United Nations charter must be upheld. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to uphold those standards, as a cornerstone of the global security framework.
The migration minister, was doing an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was declining to say the Venezuelan leader's removal violated global statutes because he was afraid of antagonising Trump, Tapp responded:
Absolutely not. UK ministers are and will remain in conversations with the US administration. And it’s for the United States to explain the juridical rationale for the action that they’ve taken. And we’re also consulting with key partners examining the juridical dimension of this.
But recently, in an interview on the BBC, the chair of the Commons foreign affairs committee (and a former 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 sphere of influence.
Asked about Starmer refusing to say that Trump was in breach of global rules, Thornberry said, because the PM was in government, he had to weigh up “multiple factors”. But she was in a different position because she was not a government member, she said. She went on:
Ultimately there is no escaping the fact. This is not a legal action.
[Starmer] may well want to listen to what the justification is from the American government. I can get in front of 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 address in Glasgow. The Scottish Labour leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving speeches, 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 visit in Berkshire where he is scheduled to make comments to the press.
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 expected to give a statement to MPs about Venezuela.
