Welcome back. Prior to the holidays, Keir Starmer had planned to use the first week back after the parliamentary break to highlight ministers' efforts to bring down the living expenses. He set out this case yesterday in an article where he cited measures including proposals to cut utility costs. However, his economic PR blitz has been overshadowed of the news agenda by Donald Trump, and his entirely different strategy to guaranteeing his voters get access to affordable power.
Not a single figure in mainstream UK politics seems very keen on adopting the American method – which is likely a positive development for Norway.
But there is an intense debate ongoing about what the UK government should be prepared to say about the American action to abduct the Venezuelan president, and install a successor with someone expected to be more compliant with US demands, especially in relation to the nation's petroleum sector.
The Prime Minister has declined to criticise the American intervention, and the government has dodged questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as legal. Recently, European Union members apart from Hungary issued a collective declaration which, while not overtly critical, did emphasise the importance of global rules, and by implication suggest Trump of ignoring it. It said:
EU members urge calm and restraint by all parties, to prevent escalation and to ensure a peaceful resolution to the crisis.
The Union reiterates that, under all circumstances, the principles of the rules-based order and the UN Charter must be upheld. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to defend those principles, as a cornerstone of the global security framework.
The migration minister, was doing an series of media appearances this morning and, when asked if Starmer was declining to say the Venezuelan leader's removal broke international law because he was afraid of antagonising Trump, the minister replied:
Absolutely not. UK ministers is, and will, be in conversations with the Americans. And it’s for the Americans to explain the legal basis for the action that they’ve taken. And we’re also talking with close allies looking at the legal aspect of this.
But recently, in an appearance on the BBC, the chair of the Commons foreign affairs committee (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 sphere of influence.
Asked about Starmer refusing to say that Trump was in violation of global rules, Thornberry said, because the PM was in office, he had to weigh up “a number of considerations”. But she was in a different position because she was not a government member, she said. She went on:
Ultimately there is no escaping the fact. This is an unlawful move.
The Prime Minister may well wish to listen to what the justification is from the US administration. I can get in front of everyone and say I literally think of anything that could be a valid excuse.
Here is the agenda for the day.
10am: John Swinney, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving talks, at 10.30am and 1pm respectively. All the leaders are looking ahead to the Scottish parliament vote in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister is on a visit in Berkshire where he is due to speak to the press.
11.30am: The Prime Minister's office holds a press briefing.
2.30pm: Shabana Mahmood, takes queries in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: Yvette Cooper, is anticipated to give a update to MPs about the ongoing situation.
