Welcome back. Prior to the holidays, the Labour leader had planned to use the initial days back after the holiday recess to focus on government efforts to reduce the living expenses. He outlined this argument recently in an article where he referenced steps including proposals to reduce energy bills. Unfortunately, Starmer’s cost of living media push has been blown out of the headlines by Donald Trump, and his distinct strategy to ensuring supporters receive affordable power.
Not a single figure in British political life seems particularly eager on embracing the American method – which is probably a positive development for Norway.
But there is a heated discussion ongoing 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 compliant with US demands, particularly in relation to the nation's petroleum sector.
The Prime Minister has declined to censure the US action, and the government has dodged questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as lawful. Last night, European Union members except Hungary issued a collective declaration which, while not explicitly condemning, did emphasise the importance of global rules, and by inference accuse Trump of disregarding it. It said:
The European Union call for restraint and caution by all parties, to avoid escalation and to secure a peaceful resolution to the situation.
The EU recalls that, under any conditions, the principles of international law and the United Nations charter must be upheld. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to defend those principles, as a pillar of the global security framework.
The migration minister, was doing an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was refusing to say the Venezuelan leader's removal broke global statutes because he was worried of antagonising Trump, the minister replied:
Absolutely not. The British government is, and will, be in discussions with the Americans. And it’s for the Americans to lay out the legal basis for the steps that they’ve taken. And we’re also consulting with key partners examining the juridical dimension of this.
But last night, 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 Russia’s Vladimir Putin and China’s Xi Jinping, that he could do what he wanted in his sphere of influence.
Questioned about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in breach of international law, she said, because the PM was in office, he had to weigh up “a number of considerations”. But she was in a separate situation because she was not a minister, she said. She added:
In the end there is no getting away from it. This is an unlawful move.
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 cannot think of anything that could be a proper justification.
Here is the agenda for the day.
10am: John Swinney, gives a address in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving speeches, at mid-morning and lunchtime respectively. All the leaders are looking ahead to the Scottish parliament vote in May.
Morning: Keir Starmer is on a tour 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 queries in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is expected to give a update to MPs about the ongoing situation.
