Welcome back. Before Christmas, Keir Starmer had intended to use the first week back after the parliamentary break to focus on government efforts to bring down the cost of living. He set out this argument yesterday in a piece where he referenced measures including proposals to reduce energy bills. However, Starmer’s cost of living PR blitz has been overshadowed of the news agenda by the former US president, and his entirely different strategy to ensuring his voters get access to affordable power.
Not a single figure in mainstream UK politics appears particularly eager on adopting the American method – which is probably good news 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 replace him with someone expected to be more compliant with American interests, especially in relation to the nation's petroleum sector.
Keir Starmer has declined to censure 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 overtly critical, did stress the importance of global rules, and by inference suggest Trump of disregarding it. It said:
The European Union call for restraint and caution by all parties, to prevent a worsening and to ensure a peaceful resolution to the situation.
The EU reiterates that, under any conditions, the tenets of the rules-based order and the UN Charter must be upheld. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to uphold those principles, as a pillar of the international security architecture.
Mike Tapp, was conducting an interview round 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, the minister replied:
Not at all. UK ministers are and will remain in conversations with the US administration. And it’s for the United States to lay out the juridical rationale for the action that they’ve taken. And we’re also consulting with close allies looking at the legal aspect of this.
But last night, in an appearance on the BBC, Emily Thornberry (and a former 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.
Asked about Starmer refusing to say that Trump was in breach of global rules, she said, because the PM was in office, 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:
In the end there is no getting away from it. This is not a legal action.
[Starmer] may well wish to hear what the reasoning is from the American government. I can state before 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 opposition leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving speeches, at mid-morning and lunchtime respectively. All the party heads are gearing up to the Holyrood elections in May.
Morning: Keir Starmer is on a tour in Berkshire where he is scheduled to make comments to the press.
11.30am: The Prime Minister's office holds a lobby briefing.
2.30pm: The home secretary, takes queries in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is anticipated to give a statement to MPs about the ongoing situation.
