Welcome back. Before Christmas, Keir Starmer had intended to use the initial days back after the parliamentary break to highlight government actions to reduce the cost of living. He outlined this argument recently in an article where he cited steps including plans to cut energy bills. Unfortunately, Starmer’s cost of living PR blitz has been overshadowed of the news agenda by the former US president, and his distinct approach to guaranteeing supporters get access to affordable power.
Not a single figure in mainstream UK politics seems particularly eager on embracing the Trump approach – which is likely a positive development for Norway.
But there is a heated discussion ongoing about what the UK government should be willing to say about Trump’s decision to abduct the Venezuelan president, and install a successor with someone anticipated to be more cooperative with American interests, particularly in regarding the nation's petroleum sector.
The Prime Minister has refused to criticise the American intervention, and the government has avoided questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as legal. Recently, European Union members apart from Hungary issued a joint statement which, while not overtly critical, did stress the value of international law, and by inference suggest Trump of ignoring it. It said:
EU members urge calm and caution by all actors, to avoid escalation and to secure a peaceful resolution to the situation.
The Union reiterates that, under all circumstances, the principles of international law and the UN Charter must be upheld. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to defend those principles, as a pillar of the global security framework.
Mike Tapp, was doing an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was declining to say the Venezuelan leader's removal broke global statutes because he was afraid of upsetting Trump, the minister replied:
Not at all. The British government are and will remain in conversations with the US administration. And it’s for the Americans to explain the legal basis for the steps that they’ve taken. And we’re also talking with key partners examining the legal aspect of this.
But last night, in an interview on the BBC, Emily Thornberry (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, she said, because the PM was in government, he had to balance “a number of considerations”. But she was in a separate situation 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 wish to listen to what the reasoning is from the American government. I can state before everyone and say I cannot think of anything that could be a proper justification.
Here is the schedule for the day.
10am: The Scottish first minister, gives a address in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving talks, at mid-morning and lunchtime in turn. All the leaders are gearing up to the Scottish parliament vote in May.
Morning: Keir Starmer is on a visit in Berkshire where he is due to make comments to the media.
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 update to MPs about the ongoing situation.
