Good morning. Before Christmas, Keir Starmer had planned to use the initial days back after the holiday recess to highlight government efforts to bring down the living expenses. He set out this argument yesterday in an article where he referenced measures including plans to cut utility costs. However, Starmer’s cost of living media push has been blown out of the headlines by the former US president, and his entirely different strategy to guaranteeing his voters get access to cheap energy.
Not a single figure in mainstream UK politics seems very keen on embracing the Trump approach – which is probably good news for Norway.
But there is an intense debate under way about what the UK government should be willing to say about the American action to extradite the Venezuelan president, and replace him with someone expected to be more cooperative with American interests, particularly in relation to the nation's petroleum sector.
The Prime Minister has declined to censure the US action, and the administration has dodged questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as lawful. Recently, all EU states except Hungary issued a collective declaration which, while not overtly critical, did stress the value of global rules, and by inference suggest Trump of disregarding it. It said:
EU members urge restraint and restraint by all actors, to prevent a worsening and to ensure a peaceful resolution to the crisis.
The EU recalls that, under any conditions, the tenets of the rules-based order and the United Nations charter must be respected. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to defend those standards, as a pillar of the global security framework.
Mike Tapp, was conducting an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was declining to say the Venezuelan leader's removal broke global statutes because he was worried of upsetting Trump, the minister replied:
Absolutely not. The British government are and will remain in discussions with the Americans. And it’s for the United States to lay out the juridical rationale for the action that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also talking with close allies looking at the legal aspect of this.
But last night, in an interview 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 refusing to say that Trump was in breach of international law, she said, because the PM was in government, he had to weigh up “multiple factors”. But she was in a different position because she was not a minister, she said. She added:
Ultimately there is no getting away from it. This is an unlawful move.
The Prime Minister may well wish to listen to what the reasoning is from the American government. I can state before us and say I literally think of anything that could be a valid excuse.
Here is the schedule for the day.
10am: John Swinney, gives a address in Glasgow. The Scottish Labour leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving talks, at mid-morning and lunchtime in turn. 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 due 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: Yvette Cooper, is expected to give a update to MPs about Venezuela.
