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 reduce the living expenses. He outlined this case yesterday in a piece where he referenced measures including plans to cut energy bills. Unfortunately, Starmer’s economic PR blitz has been overshadowed of the news agenda by Donald Trump, and his entirely different strategy to ensuring supporters get access to affordable power.
No one in British political life seems very keen on adopting the American method – which is probably a positive development for Norway.
But there is an intense debate under way about what the UK government should be willing to say about the American action to abduct the Venezuelan president, and install a successor with someone anticipated to be more cooperative with US demands, particularly in regarding the country’s oil industry.
The Prime Minister has declined to criticise the US action, and the administration has dodged questions about whether or not it considered what happened as lawful. Last night, European Union members except one nation issued a joint statement 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 restraint by all parties, to prevent escalation and to secure a peaceful solution to the situation.
The EU recalls that, under any conditions, the principles of the rules-based order and the United Nations charter must be respected. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to uphold those standards, as a cornerstone of the international security architecture.
Mike Tapp, was doing an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was declining to say the Venezuelan leader's removal broke international law because he was worried of antagonising Trump, the minister responded:
Not at all. The British government are and will remain in conversations with the US administration. And it’s for the Americans to explain the legal basis for the steps that they’ve taken. And we’re also consulting with close allies examining the juridical dimension of this.
But recently, in an interview on the BBC, Emily Thornberry (and a former shadow attorney general), said she was deeply worried about the way Trump seems to think, like the Russian leader and China’s Xi Jinping, that he could do what he wanted in his area of control.
Asked about Starmer refusing to say that Trump was in violation of global rules, she said, because the PM was in government, he had to weigh up “a number of considerations”. But she was in a separate situation because she was not a government member, she said. She went on:
In the end there is no getting away from it. This is an unlawful move.
The Prime Minister may well wish to hear what the reasoning is from the American government. I can state before everyone and say I cannot think of anything that could be a proper justification.
Here is the schedule for the day.
10am: John Swinney, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish Labour leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving talks, at mid-morning and lunchtime respectively. 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: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.
2.30pm: Shabana Mahmood, takes queries in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: Yvette Cooper, is anticipated to give a statement to MPs about Venezuela.
