Good morning. Before Christmas, Keir Starmer had intended to use the initial days back after the holiday recess to highlight ministers' efforts to bring down the cost of living. He outlined this argument recently in an article where he referenced measures including plans to reduce utility costs. Unfortunately, Starmer’s cost of living PR blitz has been overshadowed of the headlines by the former US president, and his distinct strategy to guaranteeing his voters receive 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 prepared to say about the American action to abduct the Venezuelan president, 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 US action, and the government has dodged questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as lawful. Recently, all EU states apart from Hungary issued a joint statement which, while not overtly critical, did emphasise the importance of international law, and by inference accuse Trump of disregarding it. It said:
EU members urge restraint and restraint by all parties, to avoid escalation and to secure a peaceful resolution to the crisis.
The EU recalls that, under any conditions, the tenets of international law and the UN Charter must be respected. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to uphold those standards, as a cornerstone of the global security framework.
The migration minister, was conducting an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was refusing to say the Venezuelan leader's removal broke global statutes because he was afraid of upsetting Trump, Tapp replied:
Not at all. The British government is, and will, be in discussions with the Americans. And it’s for the United States to lay out the juridical rationale for the steps that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also talking with key partners examining the legal aspect of this.
But last night, in an appearance on the BBC, the chair of the Commons foreign affairs committee (and a former shadow attorney general), said she was very concerned about the way Trump seems to think, like the Russian leader and the Chinese president, that he could do what he wanted in his area of control.
Questioned about Starmer refusing to say that Trump was in breach of global rules, she said, because the PM was in government, he had to balance “multiple factors”. 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 not a legal action.
[Starmer] may well wish to listen to what the justification is from the American government. 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: The Scottish first minister, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish Labour leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving speeches, at mid-morning and lunchtime respectively. All the party heads are looking ahead to the Holyrood elections in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister is on a tour in Berkshire where he is scheduled to speak to the media.
11.30am: The Prime Minister's office holds a lobby briefing.
2.30pm: The home secretary, takes queries in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: Yvette Cooper, is expected to give a update to MPs about the ongoing situation.
