Welcome back. Prior to the holidays, Keir Starmer had planned to use the first week back after the parliamentary break to highlight ministers' actions to bring down the cost of living. He set out this argument yesterday in a piece where he referenced steps including proposals to reduce utility costs. However, Starmer’s cost of living PR blitz has been overshadowed of the headlines by Donald Trump, and his distinct strategy to ensuring his voters get access to affordable power.
No one in British political life seems very keen on embracing the Trump approach – which is likely a positive development 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 extradite the Venezuelan president, and replace him with someone anticipated to be more cooperative with US demands, especially in relation to the nation's petroleum sector.
Keir Starmer has refused to censure the American intervention, and the government has avoided questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as legal. Recently, European Union members apart from Hungary issued a collective declaration which, while not overtly critical, did emphasise the value of global rules, and by implication suggest Trump of disregarding it. It said:
EU members call for restraint and restraint by all actors, to avoid escalation and to ensure a peaceful solution to the crisis.
The EU recalls that, under all circumstances, the tenets of the rules-based order and the UN Charter must be respected. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to defend those standards, as a cornerstone of the international security architecture.
Mike Tapp, was conducting an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was refusing to say the Venezuelan leader's removal broke global statutes because he was worried of antagonising Trump, Tapp replied:
Absolutely not. UK ministers are and will remain in conversations with the Americans. And it’s for the United States to explain the juridical rationale for the steps that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also consulting with close allies looking at the juridical dimension of this.
But recently, in an appearance 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 China’s Xi Jinping, that he could do what he wanted in his sphere of influence.
Questioned about Starmer refusing to say that Trump was in violation of international law, Thornberry said, because the PM was in office, he had to balance “multiple factors”. But she was in a separate situation because she was not a minister, she said. She added:
Ultimately there is no escaping the fact. This is an unlawful move.
The Prime Minister may well wish to listen to what the reasoning is from the US administration. I can state before us and say I cannot think of anything that could be a proper justification.
Here is the agenda for the day.
10am: The Scottish first minister, gives a address in Glasgow. The Scottish Labour leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving speeches, at 10.30am and 1pm respectively. All the party heads are looking ahead to the Holyrood elections in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister is on a tour in Berkshire where he is due to speak to the media.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.
2.30pm: Shabana Mahmood, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: Yvette Cooper, is expected to give a statement to MPs about the ongoing situation.
