Good morning. Before Christmas, the Labour leader had intended to use the first week back after the parliamentary break to focus on ministers' efforts to bring down the living expenses. He set out this case yesterday in a piece where he cited measures including proposals to reduce utility costs. Unfortunately, Starmer’s cost of living PR blitz has been overshadowed of the headlines by Donald Trump, and his entirely different strategy to ensuring his voters receive cheap energy.
No one in British political life seems particularly eager on embracing the Trump approach – which is likely a positive development for other nations.
But there is a heated discussion ongoing about what the UK government should be prepared to say about the American action to abduct the Venezuelan president, and install a successor with someone expected to be more compliant with US demands, especially in regarding the country’s oil industry.
Keir Starmer has declined to criticise the American intervention, and the government has avoided questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as legal. Last night, European Union members apart from one nation issued a collective declaration which, while not explicitly condemning, did emphasise the value of global rules, and by inference accuse Trump of disregarding it. It said:
EU members urge calm and restraint by all parties, to avoid a worsening and to ensure a peaceful resolution to the crisis.
The Union reiterates that, under any conditions, the tenets of international law and the UN Charter must be upheld. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to defend 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 refusing to say the Venezuelan leader's removal violated global statutes because he was afraid of antagonising Trump, Tapp replied:
Absolutely not. The British government are and will remain in discussions with the Americans. And it’s for the Americans to explain the juridical rationale for the action that they’ve taken. And we’re also talking with key partners examining the legal aspect of this.
But recently, in an appearance 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 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 international law, she 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:
In the end there is no escaping the fact. This is not a legal action.
[Starmer] may well want to hear what the reasoning is from the American government. I can get in front of us 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 Tory leader, are also giving talks, at 10.30am and lunchtime in turn. All the party heads are looking ahead to the Scottish parliament vote in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister is on a tour in Berkshire where he is due to make comments to the press.
11.30am: Downing Street 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 Venezuela.
