Good morning. Before Christmas, the Labour leader had intended to use the initial days back after the parliamentary break to focus on ministers' efforts to reduce the living expenses. He set out this argument yesterday in a piece where he cited steps including plans to reduce energy bills. Unfortunately, Starmer’s economic PR blitz has been overshadowed of the news agenda by the former US president, and his entirely different strategy to ensuring supporters get access to affordable power.
Not a single figure in British political life seems particularly eager on embracing the Trump approach – which is probably good news for Norway.
But there is a heated discussion under way about what the UK government should be willing to say about the American action to abduct the Venezuelan president, and install a successor with someone anticipated to be more compliant with American interests, particularly in relation to the nation's petroleum sector.
Keir Starmer has declined to criticise the US action, and the government has dodged questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as legal. Recently, European Union members apart from one nation issued a joint statement which, while not explicitly condemning, did emphasise the importance of global rules, and by inference accuse Trump of disregarding it. It said:
EU members urge restraint and restraint by all parties, to prevent escalation and to ensure a peaceful solution to the situation.
The EU recalls that, under any conditions, 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 principles, as a cornerstone of the international security architecture.
Mike Tapp, was doing an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was declining to say the Maduro extradition violated global statutes because he was afraid of antagonising Trump, Tapp responded:
Not at all. The British government are and will remain in conversations with the Americans. And it’s for the United States to lay out the legal basis for the steps 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, 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 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 office, 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:
In the end there is no escaping the fact. This is not a legal action.
The Prime Minister may well wish to listen to what the reasoning is from the American government. I can state before us and say I literally think of anything that could be a valid excuse.
Here is the schedule for the day.
10am: The Scottish first minister, gives a address in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving speeches, at mid-morning and 1pm in turn. All the party heads are looking ahead to the Scottish parliament vote in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister is on a tour in Berkshire where he is due to make comments to the media.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.
2.30pm: The home secretary, takes queries in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: Yvette Cooper, is anticipated to give a statement to MPs about the ongoing situation.
