Good morning. Before Christmas, the Labour leader had planned to use the first week back after the holiday recess to highlight ministers' actions to bring down the cost of living. He set out this argument recently in a piece where he cited measures including proposals to reduce energy bills. However, Starmer’s cost of living PR blitz has been blown out of the headlines by Donald Trump, and his distinct approach to guaranteeing supporters receive cheap energy.
Not a single figure in mainstream UK politics appears very keen 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 extradite the Venezuelan president, and install a successor with someone expected 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 administration has dodged questions about whether or not it considered what happened as legal. Recently, all EU states apart from Hungary issued a collective declaration which, while not overtly critical, did emphasise the value of global rules, and by implication accuse Trump of ignoring it. It said:
EU members urge calm and caution by all actors, to avoid a worsening and to ensure a peaceful resolution to the crisis.
The EU recalls that, under any conditions, the tenets of international law and the United Nations charter must be respected. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to defend those principles, as a pillar of the international security architecture.
The migration minister, was conducting an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was refusing to say the Venezuelan leader's removal violated global statutes because he was worried of upsetting Trump, Tapp responded:
Absolutely not. UK ministers are and will remain in discussions with the Americans. And it’s for the United States to lay out the legal basis for the action that they’ve taken. And we’re also talking with key partners looking at the juridical dimension of this.
But last night, in an appearance on the BBC, Emily Thornberry (and a ex- shadow attorney general), said she was very concerned about the way Trump seems to think, like the Russian leader 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 violation of global rules, she said, because the PM was in office, he had to balance “a number of considerations”. But she was in a separate situation because she was not a government member, she said. She went on:
In the end there is no getting away from it. This is an unlawful move.
The Prime Minister may well wish to listen to what the reasoning is from the American government. I can state before us and say I cannot think of anything that could be a valid excuse.
Here is the agenda for the day.
10am: The Scottish first minister, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish Labour leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving speeches, at mid-morning and 1pm in turn. All the party heads are gearing up to the Holyrood elections in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister is on a tour in Berkshire where he is due to make comments to the press.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.
2.30pm: The home secretary, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is anticipated to give a update to MPs about Venezuela.
