Welcome back. Before Christmas, Keir Starmer had planned to use the initial days back after the holiday recess to highlight government efforts to bring down the cost of living. He outlined this case recently in a piece where he referenced measures including plans to cut energy bills. Unfortunately, his cost of living PR blitz has been overshadowed of the headlines by Donald Trump, and his distinct approach to guaranteeing supporters get access to cheap energy.
No one in mainstream UK politics appears very keen on adopting the American method – which is likely good news for other nations.
But there is a heated discussion ongoing 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 compliant with American interests, especially in relation to the nation's petroleum sector.
Keir Starmer has refused to censure the US action, and the government has avoided questions about whether or not it considered what happened as lawful. Recently, European Union members except Hungary issued a collective declaration which, while not explicitly condemning, did stress the value of global rules, and by inference suggest Trump of ignoring it. It said:
EU members call for restraint and caution by all actors, to prevent escalation and to secure a peaceful solution to the crisis.
The EU reiterates that, under all circumstances, the tenets of the rules-based order and the United Nations charter must be upheld. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to defend those principles, as a pillar of the global security framework.
Mike Tapp, was conducting an series of media appearances this morning and, when asked if Starmer was declining to say the Venezuelan leader's removal violated global statutes because he was worried of upsetting Trump, Tapp replied:
Not at all. UK ministers are and will remain in discussions with the Americans. And it’s for the Americans to explain the juridical rationale for the steps that they’ve taken. And we’re also consulting with close allies looking at the juridical dimension of this.
But last night, in an appearance on the BBC, Emily Thornberry (and a former shadow attorney general), said she was deeply worried 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 breach of global rules, she said, because the PM was in office, he had to balance “a number of considerations”. But she was in a separate situation because she was not a government member, she said. She added:
In the end there is no escaping the fact. This is not a legal action.
The Prime Minister may well wish to listen to what the justification is from the US administration. I can state before everyone and say I literally think of anything that could be a valid excuse.
Here is the agenda for the day.
10am: John Swinney, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving talks, at mid-morning and lunchtime respectively. All the party heads are gearing up to the Scottish parliament vote in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister is on a tour in Berkshire where he is scheduled to speak to the press.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a press briefing.
2.30pm: Shabana Mahmood, takes queries in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: Yvette Cooper, is anticipated to give a statement to MPs about the ongoing situation.
