Good morning. Before Christmas, Keir Starmer had intended to use the first week back after the parliamentary break to focus on government actions to reduce the cost of living. He outlined this case recently in an article where he referenced measures including proposals to reduce utility costs. Unfortunately, Starmer’s cost of living PR blitz has been overshadowed of the headlines by Donald Trump, and his distinct approach to guaranteeing his voters get access to affordable power.
No one in British political life appears particularly eager on adopting the Trump approach – which is probably good news for Norway.
But there is an intense debate 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 American interests, particularly in relation to the country’s oil industry.
Keir Starmer has refused to censure the US action, and the government has avoided questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as legal. Last night, all EU states apart from Hungary issued a joint statement which, while not explicitly condemning, did emphasise the importance of international law, and by inference accuse Trump of disregarding it. It said:
EU members urge calm and restraint by all parties, to prevent a worsening and to secure a peaceful resolution to the crisis.
The EU recalls that, under all circumstances, 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 special duty to defend those standards, as a pillar of the international security architecture.
Mike Tapp, was conducting 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 conversations with the US administration. And it’s for the Americans to explain the legal basis for the steps that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also consulting with close allies looking at the legal aspect of this.
But recently, in an appearance on the BBC, the chair of the Commons foreign affairs committee (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 sphere of influence.
Asked about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in breach of global rules, she said, because the PM was in government, he had to weigh up “multiple factors”. But she was in a separate situation because she was not a minister, she said. She went on:
In the end there is no getting away from it. This is not a legal action.
[Starmer] may well wish to listen to what the reasoning is from the US administration. I can state before 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 address in Glasgow. The Scottish Labour leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving speeches, at 10.30am and 1pm in turn. All the party heads are looking ahead to the Holyrood elections in May.
Morning: Keir Starmer is on a visit in Berkshire where he is scheduled to speak to the media.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a press briefing.
2.30pm: The home secretary, takes queries in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is expected to give a update to MPs about Venezuela.
