Good morning. Prior to the holidays, Keir Starmer had planned to use the first week back after the holiday recess to focus on government actions to reduce the living expenses. He outlined this argument recently in an article where he referenced measures including proposals to reduce utility costs. Unfortunately, his cost of living media push has been overshadowed of the headlines by Donald Trump, and his distinct approach to ensuring supporters get access to affordable power.
Not a single figure in British political life seems very keen on adopting the Trump approach – 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 Nicolás Maduro, and install a successor with someone anticipated to be more cooperative with American interests, especially in regarding the country’s oil industry.
The Prime Minister has declined to criticise the American intervention, and the government has avoided questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as legal. Last night, European Union members except Hungary issued a collective declaration which, while not overtly critical, did stress the importance of global rules, and by inference accuse Trump of ignoring it. It said:
The European Union urge restraint and caution by all parties, to avoid escalation 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 upheld. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to defend those principles, as a pillar of the global security framework.
Mike Tapp, was doing an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was refusing to say the Venezuelan leader's removal violated global statutes because he was worried of antagonising Trump, Tapp replied:
Absolutely not. UK ministers is, and will, be in conversations with the Americans. And it’s for the Americans to explain the juridical rationale for the action that they’ve taken. And we’re also consulting with key partners examining the legal aspect of this.
But recently, 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 the Chinese president, that he could do what he wanted in his sphere of influence.
Asked about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in violation of international law, Thornberry said, because the PM was in office, 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 went on:
In the end there is no getting away from it. This is an unlawful move.
The Prime Minister may well wish to hear what the reasoning is from the American government. I can state before us 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 opposition leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving talks, at mid-morning and 1pm 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 scheduled to make comments to the press.
11.30am: The Prime Minister's office holds a lobby briefing.
2.30pm: The home secretary, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: Yvette Cooper, is expected to give a update to MPs about the ongoing situation.
