Welcome back. Prior to the holidays, the Labour leader had intended to use the initial days back after the holiday recess to focus on ministers' actions to reduce the living expenses. He set out this argument recently in an article where he referenced measures including proposals to reduce energy bills. However, his economic PR blitz has been blown out of the headlines by the former US president, and his entirely different approach to ensuring his voters receive affordable power.
Not a single figure in mainstream UK politics seems particularly eager on embracing the Trump approach – which is probably good news for other nations.
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 replace him with someone anticipated to be more compliant with US demands, particularly in relation to the country’s oil industry.
The Prime Minister has declined to criticise the US action, and the administration has dodged questions about whether or not it considered what happened as lawful. Last night, European Union members apart from one nation issued a collective declaration which, while not overtly critical, did stress the value of international law, and by inference accuse Trump of disregarding it. It said:
The European Union call for restraint and caution by all parties, to avoid a worsening and to secure a peaceful resolution to the crisis.
The Union recalls that, under all circumstances, 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 uphold those standards, as a pillar of the international security architecture.
Mike Tapp, was conducting an series of media appearances this morning and, when asked if Starmer was refusing to say the Venezuelan leader's removal violated international law because he was worried of antagonising Trump, Tapp replied:
Not at all. UK ministers are and will remain in discussions with the US administration. And it’s for the Americans to explain the legal basis for the action that they’ve taken. And we’re also consulting with key partners 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 very concerned about the way Trump seems to think, like the Russian leader and China’s Xi Jinping, that he could do what he wanted in his area of control.
Questioned about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in violation of international law, 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 minister, she said. She went on:
In the end there is no escaping the fact. This is an unlawful move.
[Starmer] may well want to hear what the justification is from the US administration. I can get in front of us and say I cannot think of anything that could be a valid excuse.
Here is the agenda for the day.
10am: John Swinney, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish Labour leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving speeches, at 10.30am and lunchtime 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 scheduled to make comments to the media.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a press briefing.
2.30pm: Shabana Mahmood, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: Yvette Cooper, is expected to give a statement to MPs about the ongoing situation.
