Good morning. Before Christmas, the Labour leader had planned to use the first week back after the parliamentary break to focus on ministers' efforts to reduce the cost of living. He outlined 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 overshadowed of the headlines by Donald Trump, and his distinct approach to ensuring his voters receive cheap energy.
No one in mainstream UK politics seems very keen on adopting the American method – which is likely good news for Norway.
But there is a heated discussion under way about what the UK government should be willing to say about the American action to abduct Nicolás Maduro, and replace him with someone expected to be more cooperative with American interests, particularly in regarding the nation's petroleum sector.
Keir Starmer has refused to censure the US action, and the administration has avoided questions about whether or not it considered what happened as legal. Last night, all EU states except one nation issued a collective declaration which, while not overtly critical, did stress the importance of international law, and by implication accuse Trump of disregarding it. It said:
EU members urge calm and restraint by all parties, to prevent a worsening and to secure a peaceful resolution to the crisis.
The EU reiterates that, under all circumstances, the principles of the rules-based order and the UN Charter must be upheld. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to defend those principles, as a pillar of the international security architecture.
Mike Tapp, was doing 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 afraid of upsetting Trump, Tapp responded:
Absolutely not. UK ministers is, and will, be in conversations with the US administration. And it’s for the Americans to explain the legal basis for the action that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also consulting with key partners looking at the legal aspect of this.
But last night, 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 the Russian leader and the Chinese president, that he could do what he wanted in his area of control.
Asked about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in violation of global rules, she said, because the PM was in office, he had to weigh up “multiple factors”. 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 an unlawful move.
[Starmer] may well want to listen to what the reasoning 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 agenda for the day.
10am: John Swinney, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition 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 Scottish parliament vote in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister is on a visit in Berkshire where he is scheduled to speak to the press.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.
2.30pm: The home secretary, takes queries in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: Yvette Cooper, is anticipated to give a statement to MPs about Venezuela.
