Welcome back. Before Christmas, the Labour leader had intended to use the first week back after the parliamentary break to focus on ministers' actions to reduce the living expenses. He outlined this argument yesterday in a piece where he cited measures including plans to cut utility costs. However, his economic PR blitz has been blown out of the news agenda by the former US president, and his distinct approach to ensuring supporters get access to affordable power.
No one in British political life appears very keen on adopting the Trump approach – which is likely good news for Norway.
But there is a heated discussion ongoing about what the UK government should be willing to say about the American action to abduct Nicolás Maduro, and install a successor with someone anticipated to be more compliant with US demands, particularly in relation to the nation's petroleum sector.
The Prime Minister has refused to censure the American intervention, and the government has avoided questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as legal. Last night, European Union members except one nation issued a collective declaration which, while not overtly critical, did emphasise the value of international law, and by inference accuse Trump of ignoring it. It said:
The European Union urge calm and caution by all parties, to avoid escalation and to secure a peaceful solution to the crisis.
The Union recalls that, under any conditions, the tenets of international law and the UN Charter must be respected. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to uphold those principles, as a cornerstone of the global security framework.
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 broke international law because he was worried of antagonising Trump, the minister responded:
Absolutely not. The British government are and will remain in discussions 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 consulting with close allies examining the juridical dimension 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 area of control.
Questioned about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in breach of international law, Thornberry said, because the PM was in government, he had to balance “a number of considerations”. But she was in a separate situation because she was not a minister, she said. She added:
In the end there is no getting away from it. This is an unlawful move.
[Starmer] may well wish to hear what the justification is from the American government. I can state before everyone and say I literally think of anything that could be a valid excuse.
Here is the schedule for the day.
10am: The Scottish first minister, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish Labour leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving talks, at 10.30am and lunchtime respectively. All the leaders are looking ahead to the Scottish parliament vote in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister is on a tour 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 anticipated to give a update to MPs about Venezuela.
