Welcome back. Prior to the holidays, Keir Starmer had intended to use the first week back after the parliamentary break to highlight ministers' efforts to bring down the living expenses. He set out this case yesterday in a piece where he referenced steps including plans to cut energy bills. However, his economic media push has been overshadowed of the news agenda by the former US president, 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 adopting the American method – which is likely good news for Norway.
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 replace him with someone anticipated to be more cooperative with US demands, especially in relation to the nation's petroleum sector.
The Prime Minister has refused to censure the US action, and the administration has dodged questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as lawful. Last night, all EU states apart from one nation issued a joint statement which, while not overtly critical, did emphasise the value of global rules, and by inference accuse Trump of ignoring it. It said:
EU members urge restraint and caution by all actors, to avoid escalation and to ensure a peaceful solution to the crisis.
The EU reiterates that, under any conditions, the tenets of international law and the United Nations charter must be respected. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to uphold those principles, as a cornerstone of the international security architecture.
The migration minister, was conducting an series of media appearances 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:
Not at all. UK ministers are and will remain in conversations with the US administration. And it’s for the United States to explain the juridical rationale for the steps that they’ve taken. And we’re also talking with key partners looking at the legal aspect of this.
But last night, in an appearance on the BBC, Emily Thornberry (and a ex- shadow attorney general), said she was deeply worried 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 area of control.
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 “multiple factors”. But she was in a different position because she was not a minister, she said. She went on:
In the end there is no getting away from it. This is an unlawful move.
[Starmer] may well want to listen to what the reasoning is from the US administration. I can state before us and say I literally think of anything that could be a proper justification.
Here is the schedule for the day.
10am: The Scottish first minister, gives a address in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving speeches, at mid-morning and lunchtime respectively. All the party heads are gearing up to the Scottish parliament vote in May.
Morning: Keir Starmer is on a tour in Berkshire where he is due to make comments to the media.
11.30am: The Prime Minister's office holds a press briefing.
2.30pm: The home secretary, takes queries in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: Yvette Cooper, is expected to give a statement to MPs about Venezuela.
