Welcome back. Before Christmas, the Labour leader had planned to use the first week back after the parliamentary break to focus on government actions to bring down the living expenses. He set out this argument yesterday in a piece where he referenced measures including proposals to cut energy bills. Unfortunately, his economic PR blitz has been blown out of the news agenda by Donald Trump, and his distinct approach to ensuring supporters get access to affordable power.
Not a single figure in mainstream UK politics seems very keen on embracing 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 willing to say about the American action to abduct the Venezuelan president, and install a successor with someone anticipated to be more cooperative with American interests, particularly in relation to the nation's petroleum sector.
Keir Starmer has refused to censure the American intervention, and the government has avoided questions about whether or not it considered what happened as lawful. Recently, all EU states except one nation issued a joint statement which, while not overtly critical, did emphasise the value of global rules, and by implication accuse Trump of disregarding it. It said:
The European Union urge calm and restraint by all actors, to prevent escalation and to secure a peaceful solution to the situation.
The Union reiterates that, under all circumstances, the tenets of the rules-based order and the UN Charter must be upheld. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to uphold those standards, as a cornerstone of the international security architecture.
Mike Tapp, was doing an series of media appearances this morning and, when asked if Starmer was declining to say the Venezuelan leader's removal broke global statutes because he was afraid of upsetting Trump, the minister replied:
Absolutely not. UK ministers is, and will, be in conversations with the Americans. And it’s for the United States to lay out the legal basis for the action that they’ve taken. And we’re also talking with close allies examining the legal aspect of this.
But recently, in an appearance 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 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 escaping the fact. This is an unlawful move.
The Prime Minister may well want to listen to what the reasoning is from the US administration. I can get in front of us and say I literally 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 leaders are gearing up to the Scottish parliament vote in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister is on a tour in Berkshire where he is due to make comments to the media.
11.30am: The Prime Minister's office holds a lobby briefing.
2.30pm: The home secretary, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is anticipated to give a statement to MPs about the ongoing situation.
