Welcome back. Prior to the holidays, the Labour leader had planned to use the initial days back after the parliamentary break to focus on government efforts to bring down the cost of living. He set out this argument yesterday in an article where he cited measures including proposals to cut utility costs. However, Starmer’s economic media push has been blown out of the news agenda by the former US president, and his distinct strategy to guaranteeing his voters get access to affordable power.
No one in mainstream UK politics seems particularly eager on embracing the Trump approach – 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 install a successor with someone expected to be more compliant with US demands, particularly in relation to the country’s oil industry.
Keir Starmer has refused to censure the US action, and the administration has dodged questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as lawful. Recently, European Union members apart from Hungary issued a collective declaration which, while not explicitly condemning, did emphasise the importance of international law, and by implication suggest Trump of ignoring it. It said:
EU members call for calm and caution by all parties, to avoid a worsening and to ensure a peaceful solution to the crisis.
The Union recalls that, under any conditions, the tenets of the rules-based order and the UN Charter must be respected. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to uphold 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 violated international law because he was afraid of upsetting Trump, the minister replied:
Absolutely not. UK ministers is, and will, be in conversations with the US administration. And it’s for the Americans to lay out the juridical rationale for the steps that they’ve undertaken. 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 ex- 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 area of control.
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 weigh up “multiple factors”. 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 escaping the fact. This is not a legal action.
The Prime Minister may well want to listen to what the reasoning is from the US administration. I can state before us and say I cannot think of anything that could be a proper justification.
Here is the schedule for the day.
10am: John Swinney, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish Labour leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving talks, at mid-morning and lunchtime in turn. All the party heads are gearing up 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: The Prime Minister's office holds a lobby 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.
