Good morning. Before Christmas, Keir Starmer had intended to use the initial days back after the holiday recess to highlight ministers' efforts to reduce the cost of living. He outlined this case recently in an article where he cited steps including proposals to reduce utility costs. Unfortunately, his economic media push has been overshadowed of the news agenda by Donald Trump, and his entirely different approach to guaranteeing supporters get access to cheap energy.
Not a single figure in mainstream UK politics seems particularly eager on adopting the American method – which is likely a positive development for Norway.
But there is a heated discussion under way about what the UK government should be willing to say about Trump’s decision to abduct the Venezuelan president, and install a successor with someone expected to be more cooperative with American interests, especially in relation to the country’s oil industry.
The Prime Minister has declined to censure the US action, and the administration has avoided questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as legal. Recently, European Union members except one nation issued a joint statement which, while not overtly critical, did stress the importance of international law, and by implication accuse Trump of disregarding it. It said:
EU members urge restraint and caution by all actors, to prevent a worsening and to secure a peaceful solution to the situation.
The EU recalls that, under all circumstances, the tenets of the rules-based order and the United Nations charter must be upheld. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to defend 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 declining to say the Venezuelan leader's removal broke global statutes because he was afraid of antagonising Trump, the minister replied:
Absolutely not. The British government is, and will, be in conversations with the Americans. And it’s for the United States to lay out the juridical rationale for the action that they’ve taken. And we’re also consulting with close allies examining the juridical dimension of this.
But last night, in an appearance on the BBC, the chair of the Commons foreign affairs committee (and a ex- shadow attorney general), said she was very concerned 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 refusing to say that Trump was in breach of international law, Thornberry said, because the PM was in office, he had to weigh up “a number of considerations”. But she was in a different position because she was not a minister, she said. She went on:
Ultimately there is no escaping the fact. This is not a legal action.
[Starmer] may well wish to listen to what the justification is from the US administration. I can get in front of 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 Labour leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving speeches, at mid-morning and lunchtime respectively. All the leaders are looking ahead to the Holyrood elections in May.
Morning: Keir Starmer is on a visit in Berkshire where he is due to make comments to the press.
11.30am: The Prime Minister's office holds a press briefing.
2.30pm: Shabana Mahmood, takes queries in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is anticipated to give a statement to MPs about the ongoing situation.
