Welcome back. Before Christmas, the Labour leader had intended to use the initial days back after the parliamentary break to highlight government actions to reduce the living expenses. He outlined this case yesterday in a piece where he referenced measures including plans to cut energy bills. Unfortunately, his cost of living media push has been overshadowed of the news agenda by Donald Trump, and his distinct approach to guaranteeing supporters get access to affordable power.
No one in mainstream UK politics seems very keen on embracing the Trump approach – which is likely 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 abduct the Venezuelan president, and replace him with someone expected to be more compliant with US demands, especially in regarding the nation's petroleum sector.
Keir Starmer has declined to censure the US action, and the government has dodged questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as lawful. Recently, all EU states apart from Hungary issued a joint statement which, while not overtly critical, did emphasise the importance of international law, and by implication accuse Trump of ignoring it. It said:
The European Union call for calm and caution by all actors, to prevent a worsening and to ensure a peaceful solution to the crisis.
The Union reiterates that, under all circumstances, the tenets of the rules-based order and the United Nations charter must be respected. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to uphold those standards, as a pillar of the global security framework.
Mike Tapp, was doing an series of media appearances this morning and, when asked if Starmer was declining to say the Maduro extradition broke global statutes because he was afraid of antagonising 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 lay out the legal basis for the steps that they’ve taken. And we’re also talking with key partners examining the juridical dimension of this.
But recently, in an appearance 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 refusing to say that Trump was in breach of international law, she said, because the PM was in government, he had to weigh up “multiple factors”. But she was in a separate situation because she was not a government member, she said. She went on:
Ultimately there is no escaping the fact. This is not a legal action.
The Prime Minister may well want to hear what the justification is from the US administration. I can state before everyone and say I cannot 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 opposition leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving speeches, at 10.30am and lunchtime respectively. All the party heads are looking ahead 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 press briefing.
2.30pm: The home secretary, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is anticipated to give a update to MPs about Venezuela.
