Good morning. Before Christmas, Keir Starmer had planned to use the initial days back after the parliamentary break to highlight ministers' efforts to reduce the cost of living. He outlined this argument recently in a piece where he referenced steps including proposals to reduce energy bills. Unfortunately, his cost of living PR blitz has been overshadowed of the news agenda by the former US president, and his distinct approach to ensuring supporters receive affordable power.
No one in mainstream UK politics appears particularly eager on embracing the Trump approach – which is probably good news for other nations.
But there is an intense debate under way about what the UK government should be willing to say about the American action to abduct Nicolás Maduro, and replace him with someone expected to be more cooperative with US demands, particularly in regarding the nation's petroleum sector.
Keir Starmer has declined to censure the American intervention, and the administration has avoided questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as legal. Last night, all EU states apart from one nation issued a joint statement which, while not overtly critical, did emphasise the value of international law, and by implication accuse Trump of ignoring it. It said:
EU members urge calm and caution by all actors, to prevent a worsening and to secure a peaceful solution to the situation.
The EU reiterates that, under all circumstances, the tenets of international law and the UN Charter must be respected. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to defend those standards, as a cornerstone of the international security architecture.
The migration minister, was doing an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was refusing to say the Venezuelan leader's removal broke global statutes because he was afraid of antagonising Trump, Tapp replied:
Absolutely not. UK ministers is, and will, be in discussions with the Americans. And it’s for the United States to explain the legal basis for the action that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also talking with key partners examining the juridical dimension 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 sphere of influence.
Questioned about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in breach of global rules, she said, because the PM was in government, he had to balance “a number of considerations”. But she was in a different position because she was not a government member, she said. She added:
In the end there is no getting away from it. This is not a legal action.
The Prime Minister may well wish to hear what the justification is from the American government. I can get in front of everyone and say I literally think of anything that could be a valid excuse.
Here is the agenda for the day.
10am: John Swinney, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving talks, at mid-morning and lunchtime in turn. All the party heads are gearing up to the Holyrood elections 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: Shabana Mahmood, takes queries in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is expected to give a update to MPs about the ongoing situation.
