Good morning. Before Christmas, Keir Starmer had planned to use the initial days back after the holiday recess to focus on government actions to reduce the cost of living. He outlined this case recently in a piece where he cited measures including proposals to cut utility costs. However, his economic PR blitz has been overshadowed of the news agenda by the former US president, and his distinct approach to guaranteeing supporters get access to affordable power.
Not a single figure in British political life appears particularly eager on embracing the Trump approach – which is probably good news for Norway.
But there is an intense debate 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 anticipated to be more compliant with US demands, especially in regarding the nation's petroleum sector.
The Prime Minister has declined to censure the American intervention, and the government 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 explicitly condemning, did stress the importance of global rules, and by inference accuse Trump of ignoring it. It said:
EU members call for restraint and caution by all actors, to avoid a worsening and to ensure a peaceful resolution to the crisis.
The EU reiterates that, under any conditions, 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 defend those principles, as a cornerstone of the international security architecture.
Mike Tapp, was conducting an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was declining to say the Maduro extradition violated international law because he was afraid of upsetting Trump, Tapp replied:
Not at all. The British government is, and will, be in conversations with the US administration. And it’s for the United States to explain the juridical rationale for the action that they’ve taken. And we’re also consulting with key partners looking at the juridical dimension of this.
But last night, in an interview on the BBC, Emily Thornberry (and a former shadow attorney general), said she was very concerned about the way Trump seems to think, like the Russian leader and China’s Xi Jinping, that he could do what he wanted in his area of control.
Asked about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in violation of international law, Thornberry said, because the PM was in office, he had to balance “multiple factors”. But she was in a different position 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.
The Prime Minister may well wish to listen to what the reasoning is from the American government. I can get in front of us and say I cannot think of anything that could be a valid excuse.
Here is the agenda for the day.
10am: The Scottish first minister, gives a address in Glasgow. The Scottish Labour leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving talks, 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 tour in Berkshire where he is scheduled to speak to the media.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.
2.30pm: Shabana Mahmood, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: Yvette Cooper, is anticipated to give a statement to MPs about the ongoing situation.
