Welcome back. Before Christmas, the Labour leader had planned to use the initial days back after the parliamentary break to highlight government efforts to reduce the cost of living. He outlined this case recently in an article where he cited steps including proposals to cut utility costs. However, Starmer’s cost of living media push has been overshadowed of the news agenda by the former US president, and his distinct strategy to guaranteeing his voters get access to affordable power.
No one in British political life appears particularly eager on embracing the American method – which is likely a positive development for other nations.
But there is an intense debate under way 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 US demands, particularly in relation to the nation's petroleum sector.
Keir Starmer has declined to censure the US action, and the government has dodged questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as legal. Recently, all EU states except one nation issued a joint statement which, while not overtly critical, did stress the importance of global rules, and by inference suggest Trump of ignoring it. It said:
The European Union urge restraint and restraint by all parties, to avoid escalation and to secure a peaceful resolution to the crisis.
The EU reiterates that, under any conditions, the principles of international law and the UN Charter must be respected. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to uphold those standards, as a pillar of the global security framework.
Mike Tapp, was doing 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 antagonising Trump, Tapp responded:
Not at all. UK ministers are and will remain in conversations with the Americans. And it’s for the United States to lay out the legal basis for the action that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also consulting with close allies examining the juridical dimension of this.
But recently, in an interview 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 China’s Xi Jinping, that he could do what he wanted in his area of control.
Asked about Starmer refusing to say that Trump was in breach of international law, she said, because the PM was in office, he had to weigh up “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.
The Prime Minister may well want to hear 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: John Swinney, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving speeches, at 10.30am and lunchtime respectively. All the party heads are gearing up to the Scottish parliament vote in May.
Morning: Keir Starmer is on a tour in Berkshire where he is due to speak to the media.
11.30am: The Prime Minister's office holds a press 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 Venezuela.
