Good morning. Before Christmas, Keir Starmer had intended to use the first week back after the parliamentary break to focus on government actions to reduce the cost of living. He set out this argument yesterday in an article where he referenced steps including proposals to reduce energy bills. Unfortunately, Starmer’s cost of living PR blitz has been blown out of the news agenda by the former US president, and his distinct strategy to ensuring his voters get access to affordable power.
No one in British political life seems particularly eager on adopting the American method – which is likely good news for Norway.
But there is a heated discussion ongoing about what the UK government should be prepared to say about the American action to abduct Nicolás Maduro, and install a successor with someone expected to be more compliant with US demands, especially in relation to the nation's petroleum sector.
Keir Starmer has declined to criticise the US action, and the administration has avoided questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as legal. Last night, 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 call for restraint and caution by all parties, to prevent a worsening and to secure a peaceful solution to the crisis.
The EU recalls that, under all circumstances, the principles 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 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 declining to say the Venezuelan leader's removal violated international law because he was worried of upsetting Trump, the minister responded:
Not at all. The British government are and will remain in discussions with the Americans. And it’s for the Americans to lay out the juridical rationale for the steps that they’ve taken. And we’re also consulting with key partners examining the juridical dimension of this.
But recently, in an interview 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 sphere of influence.
Asked about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in violation of international law, Thornberry 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:
In the end there is no getting away from it. This is an unlawful move.
[Starmer] may well wish to listen to what the justification is from the US administration. I can get in front of everyone and say I literally think of anything that could be a proper justification.
Here is the agenda for the day.
10am: John Swinney, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish Labour leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving speeches, at mid-morning and 1pm respectively. All the party heads are looking ahead to the Scottish parliament vote in May.
Morning: Keir Starmer is on a tour in Berkshire where he is scheduled to make comments to the media.
11.30am: The Prime Minister's office holds a lobby briefing.
2.30pm: The home secretary, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is anticipated to give a update to MPs about the ongoing situation.
