Good morning. Before Christmas, Keir Starmer had intended to use the initial days back after the parliamentary break to highlight ministers' efforts to bring down the living expenses. He outlined this argument recently in an article where he referenced measures including proposals to reduce utility costs. Unfortunately, Starmer’s cost of living media push has been overshadowed of the headlines by Donald Trump, and his distinct strategy to ensuring supporters get access to cheap energy.
No one in mainstream UK politics appears particularly eager on adopting the American method – which is probably a positive development for other nations.
But there is an intense debate under way about what the UK government should be prepared to say about the American action to abduct the Venezuelan president, and replace him with someone anticipated to be more cooperative with American interests, particularly in relation to the nation's petroleum sector.
Keir Starmer has declined to criticise the US action, and the administration has avoided questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as legal. Recently, all EU states apart from one nation issued a joint statement which, while not overtly critical, did stress the value of international law, and by inference accuse Trump of ignoring it. It said:
EU members call for calm and restraint by all actors, to prevent a worsening and to secure a peaceful resolution to the crisis.
The EU recalls that, under all circumstances, the principles of the rules-based order and the United Nations charter must be respected. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to defend those standards, as a pillar of the international security architecture.
Mike Tapp, was conducting an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was refusing to say the Venezuelan leader's removal violated international law because he was worried of antagonising Trump, Tapp replied:
Not at all. UK ministers are and will remain in conversations with the US administration. And it’s for the Americans to lay out the juridical rationale for the steps that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also talking with key partners looking at the legal aspect of this.
But recently, in an appearance on the BBC, the chair of the Commons foreign affairs committee (and a former shadow attorney general), said she was deeply worried 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 sphere of influence.
Asked about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in breach of international law, she said, because the PM was in government, he had to weigh up “multiple factors”. But she was in a separate situation because she was not a minister, she said. She added:
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 get in front of us and say I cannot 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 Labour leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving talks, at mid-morning and lunchtime respectively. All the party heads are looking ahead 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 queries in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: Yvette Cooper, is anticipated to give a update to MPs about Venezuela.
