Welcome back. Before Christmas, Keir Starmer had intended to use the initial days back after the parliamentary break to focus on government actions to bring down the living expenses. He set out this case yesterday in a piece where he cited steps including proposals to cut energy bills. Unfortunately, Starmer’s cost of living PR blitz has been overshadowed of the news agenda by Donald Trump, and his distinct strategy to ensuring his voters receive affordable power.
No one in mainstream UK politics seems very keen on embracing the American method – which is likely good news for other nations.
But there is an intense debate under way about what the UK government should be willing to say about the American action to abduct Nicolás Maduro, and install a successor with someone expected to be more cooperative with US demands, particularly in relation to the nation's petroleum sector.
Keir Starmer has declined to criticise the American intervention, and the government has avoided questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as legal. Last night, all EU states apart from Hungary issued a collective declaration which, while not explicitly condemning, did stress the importance of international law, and by implication suggest Trump of ignoring it. It said:
The European Union call for calm and restraint by all actors, to prevent escalation and to ensure a peaceful resolution to the situation.
The Union recalls that, under all circumstances, 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 defend those standards, as a pillar of the international security architecture.
The migration minister, was doing an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was refusing to say the Venezuelan leader's removal broke international law because he was afraid of upsetting Trump, the minister responded:
Absolutely not. UK ministers are and will remain in discussions with the US administration. And it’s for the United States to explain the juridical rationale for the steps that they’ve taken. And we’re also talking 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 former 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 refusing to say that Trump was in violation of global rules, she said, because the PM was in government, he had to weigh up “multiple factors”. But she was in a different position 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 wish to hear what the justification is from the American government. I can state before us and say I literally think of anything that could be a proper justification.
Here is the schedule for the day.
10am: The Scottish first minister, gives a address in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving talks, at 10.30am and 1pm respectively. 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 media.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a press briefing.
2.30pm: The home secretary, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: Yvette Cooper, is anticipated to give a statement to MPs about Venezuela.
