Good morning. Before Christmas, the Labour leader had intended to use the first week back after the holiday recess to highlight ministers' actions to bring down the cost of living. He set out this argument yesterday in a piece where he cited steps including plans to cut energy bills. Unfortunately, his cost of living PR blitz has been overshadowed of the headlines by Donald Trump, and his entirely different strategy to ensuring his voters get access to affordable power.
Not a single figure in British political life appears very keen on embracing the American method – which is likely a positive development for other nations.
But there is a heated discussion ongoing about what the UK government should be willing to say about Trump’s decision to abduct the Venezuelan president, and install a successor with someone expected to be more cooperative with American interests, especially in regarding the nation's petroleum sector.
The Prime Minister has refused to censure the American intervention, and the government has dodged questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as lawful. Recently, all EU states except one nation issued a collective declaration which, while not overtly critical, did stress the importance of international law, and by implication suggest Trump of disregarding it. It said:
EU members call for restraint and restraint by all parties, to prevent a worsening and to ensure a peaceful solution to the crisis.
The EU reiterates that, under any conditions, the principles of the rules-based order and the UN Charter must be respected. Permanent 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 doing an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was declining to say the Maduro extradition violated international law because he was worried of upsetting Trump, the minister responded:
Absolutely not. The British government is, and will, be in discussions with the Americans. And it’s for the Americans to explain the legal basis for the steps that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also talking with close allies examining the legal aspect of this.
But last night, 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 the Russian leader 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 breach of international law, Thornberry said, because the PM was in government, he had to balance “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.
The Prime Minister may well want to listen to what the justification is from the US administration. I can get in front of 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 speech in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving speeches, at 10.30am and lunchtime respectively. All the leaders are looking ahead to the Scottish parliament vote in May.
Morning: Keir Starmer is on a tour in Berkshire where he is scheduled to make comments to the media.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.
2.30pm: The home secretary, takes queries in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: Yvette Cooper, is anticipated to give a statement to MPs about Venezuela.
