Good morning. Before Christmas, the Labour leader had planned to use the initial days back after the parliamentary break to focus on government actions to reduce the living expenses. He set out this argument recently in a piece where he cited steps including plans to cut energy bills. However, Starmer’s cost of living PR blitz has been blown out of the headlines by the former US president, and his entirely different approach to ensuring supporters receive cheap energy.
Not a single figure in British political life appears particularly eager on embracing the Trump approach – which is probably good news for other nations.
But there is an intense debate ongoing about what the UK government should be prepared to say about Trump’s decision to extradite Nicolás Maduro, and install a successor with someone anticipated to be more compliant with American interests, particularly in regarding the country’s oil industry.
Keir Starmer has declined to censure the American intervention, and the government has dodged questions about whether or not it considered what happened as lawful. Last night, European Union members except Hungary issued a joint statement which, while not explicitly condemning, did stress the value of global rules, and by inference accuse Trump of disregarding it. It said:
EU members urge calm and restraint by all actors, to avoid a worsening and to ensure a peaceful resolution to the crisis.
The EU recalls 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 special duty to uphold 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 refusing to say the Venezuelan leader's removal broke international law because he was afraid of upsetting Trump, Tapp responded:
Not at all. The British government is, and will, be in conversations with the Americans. And it’s for the United States to lay out the juridical rationale for the action that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also talking with key partners looking at the juridical dimension of this.
But recently, in an appearance on the BBC, Emily Thornberry (and a ex- shadow attorney general), said she was deeply worried about the way Trump seems to think, like Russia’s Vladimir Putin and the Chinese president, that he could do what he wanted in his area of control.
Questioned about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in breach of international law, Thornberry said, because the PM was in government, he had to balance “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 not a legal action.
The Prime Minister may well wish to hear what the reasoning is from the US administration. I can state before us and say I literally think of anything that could be a proper justification.
Here is the schedule for the day.
10am: John Swinney, gives a address in Glasgow. The Scottish Labour leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving speeches, at mid-morning and 1pm respectively. All the leaders are gearing up to the Holyrood elections in May.
Morning: Keir Starmer is on a tour in Berkshire where he is scheduled to make comments to the press.
11.30am: The Prime Minister's office holds a lobby briefing.
2.30pm: The home secretary, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: Yvette Cooper, is expected to give a update to MPs about Venezuela.
