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 bring down the cost of living. He set out this argument yesterday in a piece where he cited measures including plans to reduce energy bills. Unfortunately, Starmer’s economic media push has been overshadowed of the news agenda by the former US president, and his distinct approach to ensuring supporters get access to affordable power.
No one in British political life seems particularly eager on embracing the Trump approach – which is likely good news for Norway.
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 install a successor with someone anticipated to be more cooperative with American interests, particularly in regarding the country’s oil industry.
The Prime Minister has declined to criticise the American intervention, and the government has avoided questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as legal. Last night, European Union members except Hungary issued a collective declaration which, while not explicitly condemning, did emphasise the value of international law, and by implication suggest Trump of ignoring it. It said:
The European Union call for restraint and caution by all parties, to avoid escalation and to secure a peaceful resolution to the situation.
The EU recalls that, under all circumstances, the principles of the rules-based order and the United Nations charter must be upheld. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to defend those standards, 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, the minister replied:
Absolutely not. The British government are and will remain in discussions with the US administration. And it’s for the Americans to lay out the legal basis 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 interview on the BBC, Emily Thornberry (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.
Questioned about Starmer refusing to say that Trump was in breach of international law, she said, because the PM was in office, he had to balance “multiple factors”. But she was in a different position because she was not a minister, 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 American government. I can state before 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 speech in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving talks, at 10.30am and lunchtime respectively. All the leaders are gearing up to the Holyrood elections in May.
Morning: Keir Starmer is on a tour in Berkshire where he is due to make comments to the media.
11.30am: The Prime Minister's office holds a press briefing.
2.30pm: Shabana Mahmood, takes queries in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: Yvette Cooper, is anticipated to give a update to MPs about Venezuela.
