Welcome back. Before Christmas, the Labour leader had intended to use the first week back after the holiday recess to focus on ministers' efforts to reduce the living expenses. He set out this argument recently in a piece where he referenced steps including proposals to reduce utility costs. Unfortunately, Starmer’s economic PR blitz has been overshadowed of the news agenda by Donald Trump, and his entirely different approach to guaranteeing supporters get access to cheap energy.
No one in British political life seems particularly eager on embracing the Trump approach – which is likely good news for Norway.
But there is an intense debate ongoing about what the UK government should be willing to say about Trump’s decision to abduct the Venezuelan president, and replace him with someone anticipated to be more cooperative with US demands, especially in relation to the country’s oil industry.
The Prime Minister has refused to censure the US action, and the government has avoided questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as legal. Recently, European Union members except one nation issued a collective declaration which, while not overtly critical, did emphasise the value of global rules, and by inference suggest Trump of disregarding it. It said:
The European Union call for calm and restraint by all actors, to avoid escalation and to secure a peaceful resolution to the situation.
The EU reiterates that, under all circumstances, the tenets of international law and the United Nations charter must be respected. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to uphold those standards, as a cornerstone of the global security framework.
Mike Tapp, was conducting an series of media appearances this morning and, when asked if Starmer was declining to say the Venezuelan leader's removal violated international law because he was worried of antagonising Trump, Tapp replied:
Not at all. The British government are and will remain in conversations with the US administration. And it’s for the Americans to explain the juridical rationale for the action that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also consulting with key partners examining the juridical dimension 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 very concerned 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.
Questioned about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in breach of global rules, she said, because the PM was in office, he had to weigh up “a number of considerations”. But she was in a separate situation because she was not a government member, she said. She went on:
Ultimately there is no escaping the fact. This is not a legal action.
The Prime Minister may well wish to listen to what the reasoning is from the US administration. I can get in front of us and say I literally think of anything that could be a valid excuse.
Here is the schedule for the day.
10am: John Swinney, 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 Scottish parliament vote in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister is on a tour in Berkshire where he is due to speak to the press.
11.30am: The Prime Minister's office holds a press 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 the ongoing situation.
