Good morning. Before Christmas, Keir Starmer had planned to use the initial days back after the holiday recess to highlight government efforts to reduce the cost of living. He set out this argument recently in a piece where he cited steps including plans to cut utility costs. However, his cost of living PR blitz has been blown out of the news agenda by Donald Trump, and his distinct strategy to guaranteeing his voters receive cheap energy.
Not a single figure in mainstream UK politics seems very keen on adopting the Trump approach – which is likely good news for other nations.
But there is a heated discussion under way 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 relation to the nation's petroleum sector.
The Prime Minister has refused to censure the American intervention, and the government has avoided questions about whether or not it considered what happened as legal. Recently, European Union members except one nation issued a joint statement which, while not overtly critical, did stress the value of global rules, and by inference accuse Trump of disregarding it. It said:
The European Union call for restraint and caution by all actors, to avoid a worsening and to ensure a peaceful solution to the crisis.
The Union reiterates 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 particular responsibility to defend those standards, as a cornerstone of the international security architecture.
The migration minister, 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 conversations with the US administration. And it’s for the United States to explain the juridical rationale for the action that they’ve taken. And we’re also consulting with key partners examining the juridical dimension of this.
But recently, in an interview on the BBC, Emily Thornberry (and a ex- 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 declining to say that Trump was in violation of international law, Thornberry said, because the PM was in government, he had to balance “multiple factors”. But she was in a different position because she was not a minister, she said. She added:
Ultimately there is no getting away from it. This is not a legal action.
[Starmer] may well wish to hear what the justification 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 schedule for the day.
10am: The Scottish first minister, gives a address in Glasgow. The Scottish Labour leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving talks, at 10.30am and lunchtime in turn. All the party heads are gearing up to the Holyrood elections in May.
Morning: Keir Starmer 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 questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: Yvette Cooper, is anticipated to give a statement to MPs about the ongoing situation.
