Good morning. Before Christmas, the Labour leader had intended to use the first week back after the holiday recess to focus on ministers' efforts to reduce the living expenses. He outlined this argument yesterday in an article where he cited measures including proposals to reduce energy bills. Unfortunately, Starmer’s economic PR blitz has been overshadowed of the headlines by Donald Trump, and his entirely different strategy to ensuring his voters get access to cheap energy.
No one in mainstream UK politics seems very keen on adopting the Trump approach – which is probably a positive development for other nations.
But there is an intense debate under way about what the UK government should be prepared to say about the American action to abduct Nicolás Maduro, and install a successor with someone expected to be more compliant with US demands, particularly in regarding the nation's petroleum sector.
The Prime Minister has refused to censure the American intervention, and the administration has avoided questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as lawful. Recently, all EU states apart from Hungary issued a collective declaration which, while not explicitly condemning, did emphasise the value of international law, and by implication suggest Trump of ignoring it. It said:
The European Union call for restraint and restraint by all actors, to avoid escalation and to secure a peaceful resolution to the crisis.
The Union reiterates that, under all circumstances, the principles of the rules-based order and the UN Charter must be respected. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility 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 violated global statutes because he was worried of upsetting Trump, Tapp replied:
Absolutely not. UK ministers is, and will, be in discussions with the US administration. And it’s for the Americans to explain the juridical rationale for the steps that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also talking with close allies examining the legal aspect of this.
But last night, in an interview on the BBC, the chair of the Commons foreign affairs committee (and a ex- 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 global rules, Thornberry said, because the PM was in government, he had to weigh up “multiple factors”. But she was in a separate situation because she was not a government member, she said. She added:
In the end there is no getting away from it. This is not a legal action.
The Prime Minister may well want to listen to what the justification is from the US administration. I can state before everyone and say I literally think of anything that could be a proper justification.
Here is the agenda for the day.
10am: John Swinney, gives a address in Glasgow. The Scottish Labour leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving talks, at mid-morning and 1pm in turn. All the party heads are looking ahead to the Scottish parliament vote in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister is on a visit in Berkshire where he is scheduled to speak to the press.
11.30am: The Prime Minister's office holds a lobby briefing.
2.30pm: The home secretary, takes queries in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: Yvette Cooper, is anticipated to give a update to MPs about Venezuela.
