Good morning. Before Christmas, the Labour leader had planned to use the first week back after the parliamentary break to focus on government actions to reduce the living expenses. He set out this case yesterday in an article where he cited steps including plans to cut energy bills. However, Starmer’s cost of living media push has been blown out of the news agenda by the former US president, and his distinct strategy to ensuring supporters receive affordable power.
No one in mainstream UK politics appears particularly eager on adopting the Trump approach – which is likely a positive development for other nations.
But there is an intense debate ongoing about what the UK government should be willing to say about the American action to extradite the Venezuelan president, and install a successor with someone expected to be more cooperative with American interests, particularly in regarding the country’s oil industry.
The Prime Minister has declined to criticise the US action, and the government has avoided questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as legal. Last night, European Union members except Hungary issued a joint statement which, while not overtly critical, did emphasise the importance of global rules, and by implication suggest Trump of disregarding it. It said:
EU members urge restraint and restraint by all actors, to prevent a worsening and to secure a peaceful resolution to the situation.
The EU reiterates that, under any conditions, the tenets of international law and the UN Charter must be upheld. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to uphold those standards, as a cornerstone of the global security framework.
Mike Tapp, was conducting an series of media appearances this morning and, when asked if Starmer was declining to say the Venezuelan leader's removal violated global statutes because he was worried of antagonising Trump, Tapp replied:
Absolutely not. UK ministers is, and will, be in discussions with the US administration. And it’s for the Americans to explain the legal basis for the action that they’ve taken. 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 former shadow attorney general), said she was very concerned 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 refusing to say that Trump was in breach of global rules, she said, because the PM was in office, he had to balance “a number of considerations”. But she was in a separate situation because she was not a government member, she said. She went on:
Ultimately there is no escaping the fact. This is not a legal action.
The Prime Minister may well want to hear what the reasoning is from the US administration. 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 speech in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving speeches, at 10.30am and 1pm in turn. All the party heads are gearing up to the Holyrood elections in May.
Morning: Keir Starmer is on a visit in Berkshire where he is scheduled to speak to the press.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.
2.30pm: The home secretary, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: Yvette Cooper, is expected to give a statement to MPs about the ongoing situation.
