Welcome back. Before Christmas, the Labour leader had planned to use the first week back after the holiday recess to focus on government actions to reduce the living expenses. He set out this case yesterday in an article where he cited steps including proposals to cut utility costs. Unfortunately, Starmer’s cost of living PR blitz has been blown out of the news agenda by the former US president, and his entirely different approach to ensuring his voters receive affordable power.
No one in British political life appears particularly eager on adopting the American method – which is likely good news for Norway.
But there is an intense debate under way about what the UK government should be prepared to say about the American action to abduct Nicolás Maduro, and replace him with someone expected to be more compliant with American interests, especially in relation to the nation's petroleum sector.
The Prime Minister has declined to censure the US action, and the administration has dodged questions about whether or not it considered what happened as legal. Recently, European Union members except one nation issued a joint statement which, while not explicitly condemning, did emphasise the value of global rules, and by inference accuse Trump of disregarding it. It said:
EU members call for restraint and caution by all actors, to prevent a worsening and to secure a peaceful solution to the crisis.
The EU recalls that, under all circumstances, the tenets of international law and the UN Charter must be upheld. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to uphold those principles, as a pillar of the international security architecture.
Mike Tapp, 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 afraid of antagonising Trump, Tapp responded:
Not at all. The British government are and will remain in conversations with the US administration. And it’s for the United States to lay out the juridical rationale for the action that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also talking with close allies examining 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.
Questioned about Starmer refusing to say that Trump was in breach of global rules, she said, because the PM was in office, he had to weigh up “multiple factors”. 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.
[Starmer] may well wish to listen to what the reasoning is from the American government. I can state before everyone 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 1pm in turn. All the leaders are gearing up to the Scottish parliament vote in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister is on a visit in Berkshire where he is scheduled to speak to the media.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.
2.30pm: The home secretary, takes queries in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: Yvette Cooper, is expected to give a update to MPs about the ongoing situation.
