Good morning. Prior to the holidays, the Labour leader had intended to use the first week back after the holiday recess to highlight government efforts to bring down the living expenses. He outlined this argument yesterday in a piece where he cited measures including proposals to cut energy bills. However, his economic media push has been overshadowed of the news agenda by Donald Trump, and his distinct approach to guaranteeing his voters receive cheap energy.
Not a single figure in British political life appears very keen on adopting the American method – which is likely 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 abduct the Venezuelan president, and replace him with someone anticipated to be more cooperative with US demands, particularly in relation to the country’s oil industry.
Keir Starmer has refused to censure the US action, and the administration has avoided questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as legal. Recently, European Union members apart from one nation issued a collective declaration which, while not overtly critical, did emphasise the importance of international law, and by implication accuse Trump of disregarding it. It said:
The European Union urge restraint and caution by all actors, to avoid a worsening and to secure a peaceful resolution to the situation.
The EU recalls that, under all circumstances, the tenets of international law and the United Nations charter must be respected. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to defend those principles, as a pillar of the global security framework.
Mike Tapp, was conducting an series of media appearances this morning and, when asked if Starmer was declining to say the Venezuelan leader's removal violated global statutes because he was worried of antagonising Trump, Tapp replied:
Not at all. The British government is, and will, be in discussions with the Americans. And it’s for the Americans to explain the legal basis for the steps that they’ve taken. And we’re also talking with key partners looking at the juridical dimension of this.
But recently, in an interview on the BBC, Emily Thornberry (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 sphere of influence.
Asked about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in violation of global rules, she said, because the PM was in government, 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 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 speech in Glasgow. The Scottish Labour leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving speeches, at mid-morning and lunchtime in turn. All the leaders are gearing up to the Holyrood elections in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister is on a tour in Berkshire where he is due to speak to the media.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a press briefing.
2.30pm: The home secretary, takes queries in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: Yvette Cooper, is anticipated to give a update to MPs about Venezuela.
