Welcome back. Prior to the holidays, Keir Starmer had planned to use the initial days back after the holiday recess to focus on government efforts to reduce the cost of living. He outlined this argument recently in a piece where he referenced steps including proposals to cut energy bills. However, his cost of living media push has been overshadowed of the news agenda by the former US president, and his entirely different strategy to ensuring supporters get access to cheap energy.
Not a single figure in mainstream UK politics seems very keen on embracing the Trump approach – which is probably a positive development for other nations.
But there is a heated discussion under way about what the UK government should be prepared to say about Trump’s decision to abduct the Venezuelan president, and replace him with someone expected to be more cooperative with American interests, particularly in relation to the country’s oil industry.
The Prime Minister has declined to criticise the American intervention, and the government has dodged questions about whether or not it considered what happened as legal. Last night, all EU states except one nation issued a joint statement which, while not overtly critical, did emphasise the importance of global rules, and by inference suggest Trump of ignoring it. It said:
The European Union urge restraint and restraint by all actors, to avoid a worsening and to ensure a peaceful solution to the situation.
The Union recalls that, under all circumstances, the tenets of international law and the United Nations charter must be upheld. 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 broke international law because he was worried of upsetting Trump, the minister responded:
Absolutely not. UK ministers is, and will, be in discussions with the US administration. And it’s for the Americans to lay out the juridical rationale for the steps that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also consulting with close allies looking at the legal aspect of this.
But recently, in an appearance on the BBC, Emily Thornberry (and a ex- shadow attorney general), said she was very concerned about the way Trump seems to think, like the Russian leader and the Chinese president, that he could do what he wanted in his sphere of influence.
Asked about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in violation of international law, Thornberry said, because the PM was in government, he had to weigh up “a number of considerations”. But she was in a separate situation because she was not a minister, she said. She went on:
In the end there is no escaping the fact. This is an unlawful move.
[Starmer] may well want to hear what the reasoning is from the American government. I can get in front of us and say I cannot 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 Tory leader, are also giving talks, at 10.30am and lunchtime 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 media.
11.30am: The Prime Minister's office holds a press briefing.
2.30pm: Shabana Mahmood, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: Yvette Cooper, is anticipated to give a update to MPs about Venezuela.
