Good morning. Prior to the holidays, the Labour leader had planned to use the initial days back after the holiday recess to focus on government efforts to reduce the cost of living. He outlined this argument yesterday in an article where he cited steps including plans to cut utility costs. Unfortunately, Starmer’s economic PR blitz has been overshadowed of the news agenda by the former US president, and his entirely different strategy to guaranteeing his voters receive affordable power.
Not a single figure in mainstream UK politics appears very keen on embracing the Trump approach – which is probably a positive development for Norway.
But there is a heated discussion under way about what the UK government should be willing to say about Trump’s decision 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.
Keir Starmer has refused to criticise the American intervention, and the government has avoided questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as lawful. Last night, all EU states apart from Hungary issued a joint statement which, while not explicitly condemning, did stress the importance of international law, and by implication suggest Trump of disregarding it. It said:
EU members call for restraint and caution by all parties, to prevent a worsening and to secure a peaceful solution to the situation.
The Union recalls that, under any conditions, the tenets 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 uphold 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 refusing to say the Venezuelan leader's removal violated global statutes because he was afraid of antagonising Trump, the minister responded:
Absolutely not. UK ministers is, and will, be in discussions with the Americans. 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 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 ex- shadow attorney general), said she was deeply worried about the way Trump seems to think, like Russia’s Vladimir Putin 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 breach of global rules, Thornberry said, because the PM was in government, he had to balance “multiple factors”. But she was in a different position because she was not a government member, she said. She added:
Ultimately there is no getting away from it. This is not a legal action.
The Prime Minister may well wish to hear what the reasoning is from the US administration. I can state before us 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 Labour leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving speeches, at 10.30am and 1pm in turn. All the leaders are gearing up 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: The Prime Minister's office holds a press briefing.
2.30pm: The home secretary, takes queries in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is expected to give a statement to MPs about Venezuela.
