Welcome back. Prior to the holidays, the Labour leader had intended to use the first week back after the parliamentary break to focus on ministers' efforts to reduce the living expenses. He outlined this case recently in a piece where he referenced measures including proposals to reduce utility costs. However, his economic media push has been blown out of the headlines by the former US president, and his distinct approach to guaranteeing supporters receive affordable power.
Not a single figure in mainstream UK politics appears particularly eager on embracing the Trump approach – 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 install a successor with someone expected to be more cooperative with US demands, especially in regarding the nation's petroleum sector.
The Prime Minister has refused to criticise the American intervention, and the administration has dodged questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as lawful. Last night, all EU states except Hungary issued a joint statement which, while not explicitly condemning, did emphasise the value of global rules, and by inference suggest Trump of ignoring it. It said:
EU members urge calm and caution by all actors, to avoid escalation and to ensure a peaceful resolution to the situation.
The Union recalls that, under any conditions, the tenets of the rules-based order and the UN Charter must be respected. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to defend those principles, as a cornerstone 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 Venezuelan leader's removal broke global statutes because he was worried of antagonising Trump, Tapp replied:
Absolutely not. The British government are and will remain in conversations 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 consulting with key partners examining the legal aspect of this.
But recently, in an interview on the BBC, Emily Thornberry (and a ex- shadow attorney general), said she was deeply worried 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.
Questioned about Starmer refusing to say that Trump was in violation of international law, she said, because the PM was in government, he had to weigh up “multiple factors”. But she was in a different position because she was not a minister, she said. She went on:
Ultimately there is no getting away from it. This is an unlawful move.
The Prime Minister may well want to hear what the justification is from the American government. I can state before us 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 address in Glasgow. The Scottish Labour leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving speeches, at 10.30am and lunchtime respectively. All the leaders are looking ahead to the Holyrood elections in May.
Morning: Keir Starmer is on a visit in Berkshire where he is scheduled to make comments 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 expected to give a statement to MPs about the ongoing situation.
