Welcome back. Prior to the holidays, the Labour leader had intended to use the first week back after the parliamentary break to focus on ministers' efforts to bring down the living expenses. He set out this case yesterday in a piece where he cited steps including plans to reduce energy bills. However, Starmer’s economic PR blitz has been blown out of the news agenda by Donald Trump, and his entirely different approach to guaranteeing his voters get access to cheap energy.
Not a single figure in British political life seems particularly eager on adopting the Trump approach – which is probably a positive development for Norway.
But there is a heated discussion ongoing about what the UK government should be prepared to say about the American action to extradite the Venezuelan president, and install a successor with someone expected to be more compliant with US demands, particularly in relation to the nation's petroleum sector.
Keir Starmer has refused to censure the American intervention, and the administration has avoided questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as lawful. Recently, all EU states except Hungary issued a joint statement which, while not overtly critical, did stress the importance of international law, and by implication suggest Trump of ignoring it. It said:
EU members urge calm and restraint by all actors, to avoid a worsening and to secure a peaceful resolution to the crisis.
The Union reiterates that, under any conditions, the tenets of international law and the United Nations charter must be upheld. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to uphold those principles, as a pillar of the international security architecture.
Mike Tapp, was doing an series of media appearances this morning and, when asked if Starmer was refusing to say the Venezuelan leader's removal broke global statutes because he was worried of antagonising Trump, Tapp replied:
Not at all. The British government is, and will, be in conversations with the Americans. And it’s for the Americans to lay out the legal basis 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, 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.
Asked about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in breach of global rules, she 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 government member, she said. She went on:
Ultimately there is no getting away from it. This is an unlawful move.
The Prime Minister may well want to listen to what the reasoning 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 agenda for the day.
10am: John Swinney, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish Labour leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving talks, at 10.30am and 1pm respectively. All the leaders 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 press.
11.30am: The Prime Minister's office holds a press briefing.
2.30pm: The home secretary, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is expected to give a statement to MPs about the ongoing situation.
