Welcome back. Before Christmas, Keir Starmer had planned to use the initial days back after the holiday recess to focus on ministers' efforts to bring down the living expenses. He set out this argument recently in a piece where he cited steps including plans to reduce utility costs. However, his cost of living PR blitz has been blown out of the news agenda by Donald Trump, and his entirely different approach to ensuring his voters get access to cheap energy.
Not a single figure in British political life appears particularly eager on embracing the Trump approach – which is probably good news for Norway.
But there is a heated discussion under way about what the UK government should be prepared to say about the American action to abduct the Venezuelan president, and install a successor with someone anticipated to be more compliant with American interests, especially in regarding the nation's petroleum sector.
The Prime Minister has declined to censure the American intervention, and the government has dodged questions about whether or not it considered what happened as lawful. Recently, European Union members apart from Hungary issued a joint statement which, while not explicitly condemning, did emphasise the value of international law, and by implication accuse Trump of disregarding it. It said:
EU members call for restraint and restraint by all actors, to prevent a worsening and to secure a peaceful resolution to the situation.
The EU reiterates that, under any conditions, the principles of international law and the UN Charter must be upheld. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to defend those principles, as a cornerstone of the international security architecture.
The migration minister, was doing an series of media appearances this morning and, when asked if Starmer was declining to say the Venezuelan leader's removal broke international law because he was worried of upsetting Trump, Tapp replied:
Not at all. 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 talking with close allies looking at the legal aspect of this.
But recently, in an appearance on the BBC, the chair of the Commons foreign affairs committee (and a former shadow attorney general), said she was very concerned 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.
Questioned about Starmer refusing 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 different position because she was not a government member, she said. She added:
In the end 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 literally think of anything that could be a valid excuse.
Here is the agenda for the day.
10am: John Swinney, gives a address in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving speeches, at 10.30am and lunchtime 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 due to make comments 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.
