Welcome back. Before Christmas, Keir Starmer had intended to use the first week back after the parliamentary break to focus on ministers' actions to bring down the living expenses. He outlined this argument yesterday in a piece where he referenced measures including proposals to reduce utility costs. However, his cost of living media push has been overshadowed of the headlines by the former US president, and his entirely different strategy to ensuring his voters get access to affordable power.
No one in British political life appears particularly eager on adopting the Trump approach – which is probably a positive development for Norway.
But there is an intense debate ongoing 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, especially in regarding the nation's petroleum sector.
Keir Starmer has declined to censure the American intervention, and the administration has dodged questions about whether or not it considered what happened as lawful. Last night, European Union members apart from one nation issued a collective declaration which, while not overtly critical, did stress the importance of international law, and by implication accuse Trump of disregarding it. It said:
The European Union call for restraint and caution by all actors, to prevent escalation and to ensure a peaceful resolution to the situation.
The EU reiterates that, under all circumstances, the principles of international law and the UN Charter must be respected. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to uphold those standards, as a pillar of the global security framework.
Mike Tapp, was doing 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 afraid of antagonising Trump, Tapp replied:
Absolutely not. UK ministers are and will remain in conversations with the Americans. And it’s for the Americans to lay out the juridical rationale for the steps that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also consulting with close allies looking at the juridical dimension of this.
But last night, in an appearance on the BBC, Emily Thornberry (and a former 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 declining to say that Trump was in breach of global rules, 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 government member, she said. She went on:
In the end there is no escaping the fact. This is not a legal action.
The Prime Minister may well want to listen to what the justification is from the American government. I can state before everyone 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 address in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving talks, at 10.30am and lunchtime in turn. All the party heads are gearing up to the Scottish parliament vote in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister is on a visit in Berkshire where he is due to speak to the media.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a press briefing.
2.30pm: Shabana Mahmood, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is anticipated to give a update to MPs about Venezuela.
