Welcome back. Before Christmas, Keir Starmer had intended to use the first week back after the parliamentary break to highlight government actions to bring down the cost of living. He outlined this case yesterday in a piece where he cited steps including proposals to reduce utility costs. However, Starmer’s cost of living PR blitz has been blown out of the headlines by the former US president, and his distinct strategy to ensuring supporters get access to affordable power.
Not a single figure in British political life seems particularly eager on embracing the American method – which is likely a positive development for other nations.
But there is an intense debate ongoing about what the UK government should be willing to say about Trump’s decision to abduct the Venezuelan president, and install a successor with someone expected to be more compliant with US demands, 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 considered what happened as legal. Recently, all EU states apart from one nation issued a joint statement which, while not explicitly condemning, did emphasise the importance of global rules, and by implication suggest Trump of ignoring it. It said:
EU members call for restraint and restraint by all actors, to prevent a worsening and to ensure a peaceful resolution to the situation.
The Union recalls that, under any conditions, the principles of the rules-based order and the UN Charter must be upheld. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to uphold those principles, as a pillar of the international security architecture.
Mike Tapp, was conducting an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was refusing to say the Maduro extradition broke global statutes because he was worried of antagonising Trump, Tapp responded:
Absolutely not. UK ministers is, and will, be in discussions with the US administration. And it’s for the Americans to explain the juridical rationale for the steps that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also consulting with close allies examining the legal aspect of this.
But last night, 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 Russia’s Vladimir Putin 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 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 government member, she said. She added:
In the end there is no getting away from it. This is not a legal action.
[Starmer] may well want 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 valid excuse.
Here is the schedule for the day.
10am: The Scottish first minister, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving talks, at mid-morning and 1pm in turn. All the party heads are gearing up to the Scottish parliament vote in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister is on a visit in Berkshire where he is due to make comments to the media.
11.30am: The Prime Minister's office holds a press briefing.
2.30pm: The home secretary, takes queries in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is anticipated to give a update to MPs about the ongoing situation.
