Good morning. Prior to the holidays, the Labour leader had intended to use the first week back after the parliamentary break to highlight ministers' efforts to reduce the living expenses. He outlined this argument yesterday in a piece where he referenced steps including plans to cut utility costs. However, Starmer’s cost of living media push has been overshadowed of the headlines by the former US president, and his distinct strategy to ensuring his voters get access to affordable power.
No one in mainstream UK politics seems particularly eager on adopting the Trump approach – which is probably good news for Norway.
But there is a heated discussion under way about what the UK government should be willing to say about Trump’s decision to abduct Nicolás Maduro, and install a successor with someone expected to be more compliant with American interests, especially in relation to the nation's petroleum sector.
The Prime Minister 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 collective declaration which, while not explicitly condemning, did stress the importance of international law, and by inference accuse Trump of ignoring it. It said:
The European Union urge calm and caution by all actors, to prevent escalation and to secure a peaceful resolution to the crisis.
The EU recalls that, under all circumstances, the tenets of the rules-based order and the UN Charter must be upheld. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to defend those principles, as a cornerstone of the global security framework.
Mike Tapp, was doing an series of media appearances this morning and, when asked if Starmer was refusing to say the Venezuelan leader's removal violated international law because he was afraid of antagonising Trump, the minister replied:
Not at all. UK ministers are and will remain in discussions with the US administration. And it’s for the United States to explain the legal basis for the action that they’ve taken. And we’re also consulting with key partners examining the juridical dimension of this.
But last night, in an interview on the BBC, the chair of the Commons foreign affairs committee (and a former 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 sphere of influence.
Asked about Starmer refusing to say that Trump was in violation of international law, Thornberry said, because the PM was in office, he had to weigh up “multiple factors”. But she was in a different position because she was not a minister, she said. She went on:
Ultimately there is no escaping the fact. This is an unlawful move.
[Starmer] may well wish to hear what the justification 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 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 10.30am and lunchtime respectively. All the leaders are gearing up to the Scottish parliament vote in May.
Morning: Keir Starmer is on a visit in Berkshire where he is scheduled to speak 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 expected to give a statement to MPs about Venezuela.
