Welcome back. Before Christmas, the Labour leader had intended to use the first week back after the holiday recess to highlight ministers' efforts to reduce the living expenses. He set out this argument yesterday in a piece where he referenced measures including plans to cut utility costs. Unfortunately, his cost of living PR blitz has been overshadowed of the headlines by Donald Trump, and his distinct approach to ensuring supporters get access to affordable power.
Not a single figure in British political life seems very keen on adopting the American method – which is probably a positive development for Norway.
But there is an intense debate under way about what the UK government should be willing to say about Trump’s decision to abduct the Venezuelan president, and replace him with someone expected to be more compliant with US demands, especially in relation to the country’s oil industry.
Keir Starmer has refused to criticise the American intervention, and the government has avoided questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as lawful. Recently, European Union members except one nation issued a joint statement which, while not overtly critical, did stress the importance of global rules, and by inference accuse Trump of disregarding it. It said:
The European Union call for restraint and restraint by all parties, to prevent a worsening and to ensure a peaceful solution to the crisis.
The EU recalls that, under all circumstances, the tenets of the rules-based order and the UN Charter must be respected. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to uphold those principles, as a cornerstone of the international security architecture.
Mike Tapp, was doing an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was declining to say the Venezuelan leader's removal broke global statutes because he was worried of antagonising Trump, Tapp responded:
Absolutely not. UK ministers are and will remain in discussions with the Americans. And it’s for the Americans to lay out the legal basis for the action that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also consulting with close allies looking at the juridical dimension of this.
But recently, in an interview on the BBC, the chair of the Commons foreign affairs committee (and a ex- 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 sphere of influence.
Questioned about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in breach of international law, she said, because the PM was in office, 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:
Ultimately there is no escaping the fact. This is not a legal action.
[Starmer] may well want to hear what the justification is from the US administration. I can get in front of us and say I literally think of anything that could be a proper justification.
Here is the agenda 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 1pm respectively. All the party heads are looking ahead to the Scottish parliament vote in May.
Morning: Keir Starmer is on a visit in Berkshire where he is due to speak to the press.
11.30am: The Prime Minister's office holds a lobby briefing.
2.30pm: Shabana Mahmood, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: Yvette Cooper, is expected to give a statement to MPs about the ongoing situation.
