Welcome back. Before Christmas, Keir Starmer had intended to use the initial days back after the parliamentary break to focus on ministers' efforts to reduce the living expenses. He outlined this argument recently in an article where he referenced steps including proposals to cut energy bills. However, Starmer’s economic media push has been blown out of the news agenda by Donald Trump, and his entirely different approach to ensuring his voters receive affordable power.
No one in mainstream UK politics appears particularly eager on embracing 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 Trump’s decision to abduct Nicolás Maduro, and replace him with someone expected to be more cooperative with US demands, particularly in regarding the country’s oil industry.
The Prime Minister has declined to criticise the American intervention, and the administration has avoided questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as legal. Last night, European Union members except Hungary issued a joint statement which, while not explicitly condemning, did emphasise the importance of global rules, and by inference accuse Trump of disregarding it. It said:
EU members urge calm and restraint by all parties, to avoid a worsening and to ensure a peaceful resolution to the crisis.
The EU reiterates that, under any conditions, the tenets of the rules-based order and the United Nations charter must be respected. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to defend those standards, as a cornerstone of the global security framework.
Mike Tapp, was doing an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was refusing to say the Maduro extradition broke international law because he was afraid of antagonising Trump, Tapp responded:
Not at all. The British government is, and will, be in discussions with the US administration. And it’s for the Americans to lay out the juridical rationale for the steps that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also consulting with close allies examining the legal aspect of this.
But recently, in an appearance on the BBC, Emily Thornberry (and a ex- 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.
Asked about Starmer refusing to say that Trump was in violation of global rules, she 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 minister, she said. She went on:
In the end there is no getting away from it. This is not a legal action.
The Prime Minister may well wish to listen to what the justification is from the American government. I can state before us and say I literally think of anything that could be a proper justification.
Here is the schedule for the day.
10am: John Swinney, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving speeches, at 10.30am and lunchtime in turn. All the leaders are gearing up to the Scottish parliament vote in May.
Morning: Keir Starmer is on a visit in Berkshire where he is scheduled to make comments to the media.
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 anticipated to give a update to MPs about Venezuela.
