Good morning. Before Christmas, the Labour leader had intended to use the first week back after the parliamentary break to highlight ministers' efforts to reduce the cost of living. He outlined this argument yesterday in an article where he referenced steps including proposals to reduce energy bills. Unfortunately, Starmer’s economic media push has been blown out of the news agenda by Donald Trump, and his distinct strategy to guaranteeing supporters get access to cheap energy.
Not a single figure in British political life seems particularly eager on adopting the American method – which is probably good news for other nations.
But there is a heated discussion under way about what the UK government should be willing to say about Trump’s decision to abduct Nicolás Maduro, and replace him with someone anticipated to be more compliant with US demands, particularly in relation to the country’s oil industry.
Keir Starmer has declined to criticise the American intervention, 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 collective declaration which, while not overtly critical, did emphasise the importance of international law, and by implication accuse Trump of disregarding it. It said:
The European Union call for calm and caution by all actors, to prevent a worsening and to secure a peaceful resolution to the situation.
The EU reiterates that, under any conditions, the principles of the rules-based order and the United Nations charter must be respected. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to uphold those standards, as a pillar of the international security architecture.
Mike Tapp, was doing an series of media appearances 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 responded:
Not at all. UK ministers are and will remain in discussions with the US administration. And it’s for the United States to explain the legal basis for the action that they’ve taken. And we’re also talking with key partners looking at 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 Russia’s Vladimir Putin and China’s Xi Jinping, that he could do what he wanted in his area of control.
Asked about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in violation of international law, she said, because the PM was in government, he had to weigh up “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 escaping the fact. This is an unlawful move.
The Prime Minister may well wish to listen to what the reasoning is from the US administration. I can get in front of everyone and say I cannot think of anything that could be a valid excuse.
Here is the agenda for the day.
10am: The Scottish first minister, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish Labour leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving talks, at 10.30am and lunchtime in turn. All the leaders are looking ahead to the Scottish parliament vote in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister is on a tour in Berkshire where he is scheduled to speak to the press.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a press briefing.
2.30pm: Shabana Mahmood, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is expected to give a statement to MPs about Venezuela.
