Welcome back. Before Christmas, Keir Starmer had planned to use the first week back after the parliamentary break to focus on government efforts to bring down the cost of living. He set out this argument recently in an article where he cited measures including plans to reduce utility costs. However, his cost of living PR blitz has been overshadowed of the headlines by the former US president, and his distinct approach to ensuring his voters get access to cheap energy.
Not a single figure in British political life seems particularly eager on embracing the Trump approach – which is likely good news for Norway.
But there is an intense debate ongoing about what the UK government should be prepared to say about the American action to abduct Nicolás Maduro, and install a successor with someone expected to be more compliant with US demands, particularly in relation to the nation's petroleum sector.
The Prime Minister has refused to censure the American intervention, and the administration has avoided questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as legal. Recently, all EU states except one nation issued a collective declaration which, while not explicitly condemning, did stress the value of global rules, and by inference accuse Trump of ignoring it. It said:
The European Union call for calm and restraint by all parties, to avoid a worsening and to secure a peaceful solution to the crisis.
The Union reiterates that, under all circumstances, the principles of international law and the United Nations charter must be respected. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to defend those standards, as a pillar of the international security architecture.
The migration minister, was doing an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was declining to say the Venezuelan leader's removal broke global statutes because he was afraid of upsetting Trump, the minister replied:
Not at all. UK ministers is, and will, be in discussions with the US administration. And it’s for the United States to lay out the legal basis for the steps that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also talking with key partners looking at the juridical dimension 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 the Russian leader 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 global rules, Thornberry said, because the PM was in government, he had to balance “a number of considerations”. But she was in a separate situation because she was not a minister, she said. She went on:
Ultimately there is no escaping the fact. This is an unlawful move.
The Prime Minister may well wish to hear what the reasoning is from the US administration. 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: John Swinney, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving speeches, at 10.30am and 1pm respectively. 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 make comments to the media.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.
2.30pm: The home secretary, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: Yvette Cooper, is anticipated to give a update to MPs about Venezuela.