Good morning. Prior to the holidays, the Labour leader had intended to use the first week back after the holiday recess to highlight ministers' actions to reduce the living expenses. He outlined this argument yesterday in an article where he cited measures including plans to cut utility costs. Unfortunately, Starmer’s economic PR blitz has been blown out of the news agenda by the former US president, and his distinct approach to guaranteeing his voters receive cheap energy.
Not a single figure in mainstream UK politics appears particularly eager on adopting the American method – which is probably a positive development for other nations.
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 anticipated to be more compliant with US demands, especially in relation to the nation's petroleum sector.
The Prime Minister has declined to censure the US action, and the government has dodged questions about whether or not it considered what happened as lawful. Recently, all EU states except one nation issued a joint statement which, while not explicitly condemning, did stress the importance of global rules, and by implication accuse Trump of ignoring it. It said:
EU members call for restraint and restraint by all parties, to prevent escalation and to ensure a peaceful solution to the crisis.
The Union reiterates that, under any conditions, the principles of international law and the UN Charter must be respected. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to defend those standards, as a cornerstone of the international security architecture.
The migration minister, was conducting an series of media appearances this morning and, when asked if Starmer was declining to say the Venezuelan leader's removal broke global statutes because he was afraid of antagonising Trump, the minister replied:
Absolutely not. The British government are and will remain in conversations with the US administration. 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 examining the juridical dimension of this.
But last night, 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 Russia’s Vladimir Putin and the Chinese president, that he could do what he wanted in his area of control.
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 getting away from it. This is an unlawful move.
The Prime Minister may well wish to listen to what the justification is from the US administration. 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: John Swinney, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish Labour leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving talks, at mid-morning and 1pm respectively. All the party heads are looking ahead to the Holyrood elections in May.
Morning: Keir Starmer is on a tour in Berkshire where he is scheduled to speak 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: Yvette Cooper, is anticipated to give a update to MPs about the ongoing situation.
