Good morning. Before Christmas, the Labour leader had planned to use the first week back after the holiday recess to focus on ministers' efforts to reduce the living expenses. He outlined this case recently in a piece where he referenced measures including proposals to cut energy bills. Unfortunately, his cost of living media push has been blown out of the news agenda by Donald Trump, and his entirely different approach to guaranteeing his voters get access to cheap energy.
Not a single figure in British political life appears particularly eager on embracing the American method – which is probably a positive development for other nations.
But there is a heated discussion ongoing about what the UK government should be willing to say about the American action to abduct the Venezuelan president, and replace him with someone anticipated to be more compliant with American interests, particularly in relation to the nation's petroleum sector.
Keir Starmer has refused to criticise the US action, and the government has dodged questions about whether or not it considered what happened as lawful. Recently, all EU states apart from Hungary issued a collective declaration which, while not explicitly condemning, did stress the importance of international law, and by inference accuse Trump of ignoring it. It said:
EU members urge calm and restraint by all parties, to avoid a worsening and to ensure a peaceful resolution to the situation.
The EU recalls that, under any conditions, the principles of the rules-based order and the UN Charter must be respected. 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 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 afraid of antagonising Trump, the minister replied:
Absolutely not. The British government is, and will, be in conversations with the US administration. And it’s for the United States to lay out the legal basis for the action that they’ve taken. And we’re also consulting with close allies examining the legal aspect of this.
But last night, 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 Russia’s Vladimir Putin and China’s Xi Jinping, that he could do what he wanted in his sphere of influence.
Asked about Starmer refusing to say that Trump was in breach of international law, 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 minister, 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 want to listen to what the reasoning is from the US administration. I can get in front of everyone and say I literally think of anything that could be a valid excuse.
Here is the schedule for the day.
10am: The Scottish first minister, gives a address in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving talks, at mid-morning and lunchtime in turn. All the leaders are looking ahead to the Scottish parliament vote in May.
Morning: Keir Starmer is on a tour in Berkshire where he is scheduled 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 update to MPs about Venezuela.
