Welcome back. Prior to the holidays, the Labour leader had intended to use the initial days back after the parliamentary break to focus on ministers' actions to bring down the cost of living. He outlined this case recently in a piece where he cited measures including plans to cut utility costs. However, his cost of living PR blitz has been overshadowed of the headlines by the former US president, and his distinct approach to guaranteeing supporters receive affordable power.
Not a single figure in British political life seems particularly eager on embracing the Trump approach – which is probably a positive development 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 abduct Nicolás Maduro, and install a successor with someone expected to be more compliant with American interests, especially in relation to the nation's petroleum sector.
Keir Starmer has refused to criticise the American intervention, and the government has dodged questions about whether or not it considered what happened as lawful. Recently, all EU states except Hungary issued a collective declaration which, while not explicitly condemning, did emphasise the value of global rules, and by implication suggest Trump of ignoring it. It said:
The European Union call for calm and restraint by all parties, to prevent escalation and to ensure a peaceful solution to the crisis.
The Union reiterates that, under any conditions, the tenets of international law and the United Nations charter must be respected. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to defend those standards, as a pillar of the global security framework.
Mike Tapp, was doing an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was declining to say the Venezuelan leader's removal broke global statutes because he was afraid of upsetting Trump, Tapp replied:
Not at all. UK ministers is, and will, be in conversations with the Americans. 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 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 Russia’s Vladimir Putin 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 international law, 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 an unlawful move.
The Prime Minister may well wish to hear what the reasoning is from the US administration. I can state before everyone 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 address in Glasgow. The Scottish Labour leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving speeches, at mid-morning and lunchtime respectively. All the leaders are looking ahead to the Holyrood elections in May.
Morning: Keir Starmer 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 lobby briefing.
2.30pm: The home secretary, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is expected to give a update to MPs about the ongoing situation.
