Welcome back. Prior to the holidays, the Labour leader had planned to use the first week back after the parliamentary break to highlight ministers' actions to reduce the living expenses. He outlined this case yesterday in an article where he referenced steps including plans to cut energy bills. However, his cost of living media push has been blown out of the news agenda by Donald Trump, and his entirely different approach to ensuring his voters receive affordable power.
Not a single figure in British political life seems very keen on adopting the Trump approach – which is likely good news for other nations.
But there is an intense debate 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 US demands, particularly in regarding the nation's petroleum sector.
The Prime Minister has refused to censure the American intervention, and the government has avoided questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as lawful. Recently, European Union members except Hungary issued a joint statement which, while not explicitly condemning, did stress the importance of international law, and by implication suggest Trump of disregarding it. It said:
EU members urge calm and restraint by all actors, to prevent a worsening and to secure a peaceful solution to the crisis.
The EU recalls that, under all circumstances, the tenets of international law and the United Nations charter must be respected. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to defend those principles, as a pillar of the international security architecture.
Mike Tapp, was conducting an series of media appearances this morning and, when asked if Starmer was refusing to say the Venezuelan leader's removal broke international law because he was afraid of upsetting Trump, Tapp replied:
Absolutely not. The British government is, and will, be in conversations with the US administration. And it’s for the United States to explain the juridical rationale for the action that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also talking with key partners looking at the juridical dimension of this.
But last night, in an appearance on the BBC, Emily Thornberry (and a former 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.
Questioned about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in breach of global rules, she said, because the PM was in government, he had to balance “a number of considerations”. 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 an unlawful move.
[Starmer] may well want to listen to what the reasoning is from the American government. I can get in front of everyone and say I literally think of anything that could be a proper justification.
Here is the schedule for the day.
10am: The Scottish first minister, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish Labour leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving speeches, at mid-morning and 1pm in turn. All the leaders are gearing up 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: Downing Street 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 the ongoing situation.
