Good morning. Before Christmas, Keir Starmer had planned to use the first week back after the holiday recess to highlight government efforts to bring down the cost of living. He set out this case recently in an article where he referenced steps including proposals to reduce energy bills. However, Starmer’s economic PR blitz has been blown out of the news agenda by Donald Trump, and his entirely different strategy to guaranteeing supporters get access to affordable power.
Not a single figure in British political life seems very keen on adopting 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 the American action to abduct the Venezuelan president, and install a successor with someone anticipated to be more compliant with American interests, particularly in regarding the country’s oil industry.
Keir Starmer has declined to censure the US action, and the government has dodged questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as lawful. Recently, European Union members except Hungary issued a joint statement which, while not overtly critical, did emphasise the importance of global rules, and by inference accuse Trump of ignoring it. It said:
The European Union call for calm and caution by all parties, to avoid a worsening and to ensure a peaceful resolution to the crisis.
The EU recalls that, under any conditions, the principles of the rules-based order and the United Nations charter must be respected. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to uphold those principles, as a pillar of the global security framework.
The migration minister, was conducting an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was declining to say the Venezuelan leader's removal violated global statutes because he was worried of antagonising Trump, Tapp replied:
Not at all. UK ministers is, and will, be in conversations with the Americans. And it’s for the United States to explain the legal basis for the steps that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also consulting with key partners looking at the juridical dimension of this.
But recently, in an interview 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 area of control.
Asked about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in violation of international law, she said, because the PM was in government, he had to weigh up “a number of considerations”. But she was in a different position because she was not a government member, she said. She went on:
Ultimately there is no escaping the fact. This is an unlawful move.
The Prime Minister may well want to hear what the justification is from the American government. I can state before us and say I cannot think of anything that could be a proper justification.
Here is the schedule for the day.
10am: The Scottish first minister, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish Labour leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving speeches, at 10.30am and lunchtime respectively. All the party heads are looking ahead to the Holyrood elections in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister is on a visit in Berkshire where he is scheduled to make comments to the press.
11.30am: The Prime Minister's office holds a lobby briefing.
2.30pm: Shabana Mahmood, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is expected to give a update to MPs about Venezuela.
