Welcome back. Before Christmas, the Labour leader had intended to use the initial days back after the holiday recess to focus on government actions to reduce the cost of living. He set out this argument yesterday in an article where he cited measures including plans to reduce energy bills. However, Starmer’s economic media push has been overshadowed of the headlines by Donald Trump, and his entirely different approach to ensuring supporters get access to affordable power.
Not a single figure in British political life appears very keen on embracing the American method – which is probably good news for Norway.
But there is a heated discussion ongoing about what the UK government should be prepared 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 regarding the nation's petroleum sector.
Keir Starmer has refused to criticise the US action, and the administration has avoided questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as legal. 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 suggest Trump of ignoring it. It said:
The European Union call for restraint and caution by all parties, to avoid escalation and to ensure a peaceful resolution to the situation.
The EU reiterates that, under all circumstances, the tenets of international law and the UN Charter must be upheld. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to uphold those principles, as a pillar of the international security architecture.
The migration minister, was conducting an series of media appearances this morning and, when asked if Starmer was refusing to say the Venezuelan leader's removal broke international law because he was afraid of antagonising Trump, Tapp replied:
Absolutely not. The British government is, and will, be in discussions 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 consulting with close allies examining the juridical dimension of this.
But recently, in an interview on the BBC, the chair of the Commons foreign affairs committee (and a ex- shadow attorney general), said she was very concerned 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 sphere of influence.
Questioned about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in violation of international law, she said, because the PM was in office, he had to weigh up “multiple factors”. But she was in a separate situation because she was not a government member, she said. She went on:
Ultimately there is no escaping the fact. 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: John Swinney, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving talks, at 10.30am and 1pm in turn. 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 scheduled to make comments to the press.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.
2.30pm: Shabana Mahmood, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: Yvette Cooper, is anticipated to give a statement to MPs about the ongoing situation.
