Welcome back. Prior to the holidays, Keir Starmer had planned to use the first week back after the parliamentary break to highlight government actions to bring down the cost of living. He set out this case recently in a piece where he referenced steps including plans to cut energy bills. Unfortunately, Starmer’s economic PR blitz has been blown out of the headlines by the former US president, and his entirely different strategy to ensuring supporters get access to affordable power.
Not a single figure in mainstream UK politics seems very keen on adopting the American method – which is likely a positive development for Norway.
But there is a heated discussion ongoing about what the UK government should be willing to say about Trump’s decision to abduct Nicolás Maduro, and replace him with someone anticipated to be more cooperative with US demands, particularly in relation to the nation's petroleum sector.
Keir Starmer has declined to criticise the American intervention, and the administration has dodged questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as legal. Last night, all EU states except Hungary issued a joint statement which, while not overtly critical, did emphasise the value of global rules, and by inference suggest Trump of ignoring it. It said:
EU members call for restraint and restraint by all actors, to prevent a worsening and to secure a peaceful resolution to the crisis.
The EU reiterates that, under all circumstances, the tenets of the rules-based order and the United Nations charter must be respected. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to uphold those standards, as a pillar of the global security framework.
Mike Tapp, was conducting an series of media appearances this morning and, when asked if Starmer was declining to say the Maduro extradition broke international law because he was afraid of antagonising Trump, Tapp responded:
Not at all. The British government is, and will, be in conversations with the Americans. And it’s for the United States to lay out the juridical rationale for the steps that they’ve taken. And we’re also talking with close allies examining the juridical dimension of this.
But recently, 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 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 violation of global rules, 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 government member, she said. She added:
In the end there is no escaping the fact. This is not a legal action.
The Prime Minister may well wish to listen to what the reasoning is from the US administration. I can state before us and say I literally think of anything that could be a valid excuse.
Here is the schedule for the day.
10am: John Swinney, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish Labour leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving speeches, at 10.30am and 1pm in turn. All the party heads are gearing up to the Scottish parliament vote in May.
Morning: Keir Starmer is on a tour in Berkshire where he is scheduled to speak to the press.
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 update to MPs about Venezuela.
