Welcome back. Before Christmas, the Labour leader had intended to use the initial days back after the holiday recess to highlight government actions to reduce the cost of living. He outlined this argument recently in an article where he referenced measures including plans to cut utility costs. Unfortunately, Starmer’s economic media push has been overshadowed of the headlines by the former US president, and his distinct approach to ensuring his voters get access to cheap energy.
No one in British political life seems very keen on adopting the American method – which is probably a positive development for Norway.
But there is a heated discussion under way about what the UK government should be willing to say about the American action to abduct Nicolás Maduro, and replace him with someone anticipated to be more cooperative with US demands, particularly in relation to the country’s oil industry.
Keir Starmer has refused to criticise the American intervention, and the government 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 explicitly condemning, did stress the value of global rules, and by implication accuse Trump of disregarding it. It said:
The European Union call for restraint and caution by all parties, to prevent escalation and to secure a peaceful resolution to the situation.
The Union recalls that, under all circumstances, the principles of international law and the UN Charter must be respected. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to uphold those standards, as a pillar of the global security framework.
The migration minister, was doing an series of media appearances this morning and, when asked if Starmer was refusing to say the Venezuelan leader's removal broke international law because he was worried of upsetting Trump, the minister responded:
Absolutely not. UK ministers is, and will, be in discussions with the US administration. And it’s for the Americans to lay out the legal basis for the action that they’ve taken. And we’re also talking with close allies looking at the juridical dimension of this.
But recently, in an appearance on the BBC, Emily Thornberry (and a former shadow attorney general), said she was very concerned 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 global rules, 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 added:
Ultimately there is no getting away from it. This is not a legal action.
The Prime Minister may well want to hear what the justification is from the American government. I can state before 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 address in Glasgow. The Scottish Labour leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving talks, at mid-morning and lunchtime respectively. All the party heads are looking ahead to the Scottish parliament vote in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister is on a visit in Berkshire where he is scheduled to make comments to the media.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a press briefing.
2.30pm: Shabana Mahmood, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: Yvette Cooper, is expected to give a statement to MPs about Venezuela.
