Good morning. Prior to the holidays, Keir Starmer had intended to use the initial days back after the holiday recess to focus on government actions to reduce the living expenses. He outlined this case yesterday in an article where he referenced steps including plans to cut utility costs. 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 cheap energy.
Not a single figure in mainstream UK politics appears particularly eager on embracing the Trump approach – which is likely a positive development for Norway.
But there is an intense debate under way about what the UK government should be willing to say about Trump’s decision to abduct the Venezuelan president, and install a successor with someone expected to be more compliant with American interests, particularly in relation to the nation's petroleum sector.
Keir Starmer has refused to censure the American intervention, and the administration has avoided questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as legal. Last night, all EU states except Hungary issued a joint statement which, while not overtly critical, did emphasise the importance of global rules, and by implication accuse Trump of disregarding it. It said:
The European Union call for restraint and restraint by all actors, to prevent escalation and to ensure a peaceful resolution to the situation.
The EU recalls that, under any conditions, 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 pillar 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 violated international law because he was worried of upsetting Trump, the minister replied:
Absolutely not. UK ministers are and will remain in conversations with the US administration. And it’s for the United States to explain the legal basis for the action that they’ve taken. And we’re also consulting with close allies looking at the juridical dimension of this.
But recently, in an interview on the BBC, the chair of the Commons foreign affairs committee (and a former 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.
Asked about Starmer refusing to say that Trump was in violation of international law, Thornberry said, because the PM was in office, he had to balance “multiple factors”. But she was in a different position because she was not a government member, she said. She added:
Ultimately there is no escaping the fact. This is not a legal action.
[Starmer] may well wish to listen to what the justification is from the American government. I can state before us and say I cannot 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 Conservative leader, are also giving talks, at 10.30am and 1pm in turn. All the party heads are looking ahead to the Scottish parliament vote in May.
Morning: Keir Starmer is on a visit in Berkshire where he is scheduled to make comments to the press.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.
2.30pm: The home secretary, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is anticipated to give a statement to MPs about Venezuela.
