Good morning. Before Christmas, the Labour leader had intended to use the initial days back after the holiday recess to highlight government actions to bring down the living expenses. He outlined this case yesterday in an article where he cited measures including plans to reduce energy bills. Unfortunately, Starmer’s cost of living PR blitz has been blown out of the headlines by the former US president, and his entirely different approach to guaranteeing supporters get access to cheap energy.
Not a single figure in mainstream UK politics seems very keen on embracing the Trump approach – which is probably good news for Norway.
But there is an intense debate under way about what the UK government should be willing to say about the American action to abduct the Venezuelan president, and replace him with someone expected to be more compliant with US demands, especially in relation to the country’s oil industry.
Keir Starmer has refused to criticise the American intervention, and the administration has avoided questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as lawful. Last night, European Union members apart from one nation issued a collective declaration which, while not overtly critical, did emphasise the value of international law, and by implication accuse Trump of ignoring it. It said:
The European Union call for calm and restraint by all actors, to avoid a worsening and to secure a peaceful solution to the situation.
The Union recalls that, under all circumstances, the tenets of international law and the United Nations charter must be upheld. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to uphold 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 broke global statutes because he was worried of antagonising Trump, Tapp responded:
Not at all. The British government are and will remain 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 talking with key partners looking at the juridical dimension of this.
But last night, in an interview on the BBC, Emily Thornberry (and a ex- shadow attorney general), said she was very concerned about the way Trump seems to think, like Russia’s Vladimir Putin and China’s Xi Jinping, that he could do what he wanted in his sphere of influence.
Asked about Starmer refusing 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 separate situation because she was not a government member, she said. She went on:
In the end there is no getting away from it. This is not a legal action.
[Starmer] 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 valid excuse.
Here is the schedule for the day.
10am: The Scottish first minister, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving speeches, at mid-morning and lunchtime in turn. All the party heads are looking ahead to the Scottish parliament vote in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister is on a tour in Berkshire where he is due to speak to the press.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a press briefing.
2.30pm: The home secretary, takes queries in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: Yvette Cooper, is expected to give a update to MPs about Venezuela.
