Welcome back. Before Christmas, the Labour leader had intended to use the first week back after the holiday recess to highlight ministers' actions to bring down the living expenses. He outlined this case recently in an article where he referenced measures including proposals to cut utility costs. However, his cost of living media push has been blown out of the news agenda by the former US president, and his entirely different approach to ensuring his voters get access to cheap energy.
No one in mainstream UK politics seems very keen on adopting the Trump approach – which is likely a positive development for other nations.
But there is a heated discussion ongoing about what the UK government should be prepared to say about Trump’s decision to abduct the Venezuelan president, and install a successor with someone anticipated to be more cooperative with American interests, especially in relation to the country’s oil industry.
The Prime Minister has refused to censure the American intervention, and the administration has dodged questions about whether or not it considered what happened as legal. Last night, all EU states apart from one nation 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:
EU members call for calm and restraint by all parties, to avoid a worsening and to secure a peaceful resolution to the crisis.
The EU reiterates that, under all circumstances, the principles of the rules-based order and the United Nations charter must be upheld. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to defend those standards, 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 violated global statutes because he was afraid of upsetting Trump, the minister replied:
Absolutely not. The British government is, and will, be in conversations with the Americans. And it’s for the United States to lay out the legal basis for the steps that they’ve taken. And we’re also consulting with key partners examining 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 Russia’s Vladimir Putin and China’s Xi Jinping, that he could do what he wanted in his sphere of influence.
Asked about Starmer refusing to say that Trump was in violation of international law, she said, because the PM was in government, he had to balance “multiple factors”. But she was in a different position because she was not a government member, she said. She went on:
Ultimately there is no getting away from it. This is not a legal action.
[Starmer] may well wish to listen to what the justification 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 agenda for the day.
10am: John Swinney, gives a address in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving speeches, at 10.30am and lunchtime in turn. All the party heads are gearing up to the Holyrood elections in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister is on a visit in Berkshire where he is scheduled to make comments to the media.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.
2.30pm: Shabana Mahmood, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is anticipated to give a statement to MPs about the ongoing situation.
