Welcome back. Prior to the holidays, the Labour leader had intended to use the first week back after the holiday recess to highlight ministers' efforts to reduce the living expenses. He set out this case yesterday in a piece where he cited steps including plans to cut utility costs. However, his economic PR blitz has been overshadowed of the headlines by the former US president, and his entirely different approach to ensuring supporters receive affordable power.
Not a single figure in British political life seems very keen on embracing the Trump approach – which is probably good news for Norway.
But there is a heated discussion under way about what the UK government should be willing to say about Trump’s decision to abduct Nicolás Maduro, and replace him with someone anticipated to be more cooperative with US demands, especially in relation to the nation's petroleum sector.
The Prime Minister has refused to criticise the US action, and the administration has avoided questions about whether or not it considered what happened as legal. Recently, all EU states except Hungary 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 restraint and caution by all parties, to avoid a worsening and to secure a peaceful resolution to the crisis.
The EU recalls that, under all circumstances, the principles of the rules-based order and the United Nations charter must be upheld. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to uphold those principles, as a cornerstone of the global security framework.
Mike Tapp, was conducting an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was refusing to say the Venezuelan leader's removal violated international law because he was afraid of upsetting Trump, the minister replied:
Absolutely not. The British government is, and will, be 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 taken. And we’re also talking with key partners examining the legal aspect of this.
But last night, 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 Russia’s Vladimir Putin 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 breach of global rules, Thornberry said, because the PM was in government, 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 getting away from it. This is not a legal action.
[Starmer] may well wish to listen to what the justification is from the American government. I can get in front of us and say I cannot think of anything that could be a proper justification.
Here is the agenda for the day.
10am: The Scottish first minister, gives a address in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving speeches, at mid-morning and 1pm respectively. All the party heads are looking ahead to the Scottish parliament vote in May.
Morning: Keir Starmer 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: The foreign secretary, is expected to give a statement to MPs about the ongoing situation.
