Good morning. Prior to the holidays, the Labour leader had planned to use the initial days back after the parliamentary break to focus on ministers' actions to bring down the living expenses. He set out this argument yesterday in a piece where he cited steps including plans to cut energy bills. However, Starmer’s cost of living PR blitz has been overshadowed of the headlines by Donald Trump, and his distinct strategy to ensuring his voters receive cheap energy.
Not a single figure in British political life seems very keen 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 Trump’s decision to extradite the Venezuelan president, and install a successor with someone expected to be more compliant with American interests, particularly in regarding the nation's petroleum sector.
The Prime Minister has refused to censure the American intervention, and the administration has avoided questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as legal. Recently, all EU states except one nation issued a collective declaration which, while not explicitly condemning, did emphasise the value of global rules, and by implication accuse Trump of disregarding it. It said:
The European Union urge calm and caution by all actors, to avoid a worsening and to ensure a peaceful solution to the situation.
The EU reiterates that, under any conditions, the tenets of the rules-based order and the United Nations charter must be respected. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to defend those principles, as a cornerstone of the international security architecture.
Mike Tapp, was doing an series of media appearances this morning and, when asked if Starmer was refusing to say the Venezuelan leader's removal broke global statutes because he was afraid of upsetting Trump, Tapp responded:
Not at all. The British government is, and will, be in conversations with the Americans. And it’s for the Americans to lay out the legal basis for the steps that they’ve taken. And we’re also consulting 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 the Russian leader and the Chinese president, that he could do what he wanted in his sphere of influence.
Questioned about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in breach of global rules, she said, because the PM was in government, he had to balance “a number of considerations”. 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 wish to listen to what the reasoning is from the American government. I can get in front of everyone and say I cannot 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 Tory leader, are also giving speeches, at mid-morning and 1pm in turn. All the leaders are gearing up 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: The Prime Minister's office holds a lobby briefing.
2.30pm: The home secretary, takes queries in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is expected to give a update to MPs about Venezuela.
