Good morning. Before Christmas, the Labour leader had planned to use the first week back after the parliamentary break to focus on government actions to reduce the living expenses. He outlined this case recently in a piece where he cited measures including proposals to cut energy bills. However, his cost of living PR blitz has been overshadowed of the headlines by the former US president, and his entirely different strategy to ensuring supporters receive affordable power.
Not a single figure in mainstream UK politics seems very keen on embracing the Trump approach – 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 Trump’s decision to abduct the Venezuelan president, and replace him with someone expected to be more cooperative with American interests, particularly in relation to the nation's petroleum sector.
The Prime Minister has declined to criticise the US action, and the administration has dodged questions about whether or not it considered what happened as legal. Last night, European Union members except one nation issued a joint statement which, while not overtly critical, did stress the importance of global rules, and by implication suggest Trump of ignoring it. It said:
EU members urge restraint and restraint by all parties, to prevent a worsening and to ensure a peaceful resolution to the crisis.
The EU reiterates that, under any conditions, the principles 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 standards, as a pillar 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 Maduro extradition violated international law because he was worried of upsetting Trump, the minister responded:
Not at all. UK ministers is, and will, be in discussions with the US administration. And it’s for the Americans to lay out the legal basis 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 interview 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.
Questioned about Starmer refusing to say that Trump was in violation of international law, she said, because the PM was in government, he had to weigh up “a number of considerations”. But she was in a separate situation because she was not a government member, she said. She added:
Ultimately there is no getting away from it. This is an unlawful move.
The Prime Minister may well want to hear what the justification is from the US administration. I can state before everyone and say I cannot think of anything that could be a proper justification.
Here is the schedule for the day.
10am: The Scottish first minister, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish Labour leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving speeches, at 10.30am and 1pm respectively. All the party heads are gearing up to the Scottish parliament vote in May.
Morning: Keir Starmer is on a visit in Berkshire where he is due to make comments to the media.
11.30am: The Prime Minister's office holds a lobby briefing.
2.30pm: Shabana Mahmood, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is anticipated to give a update to MPs about Venezuela.
