Good morning. Prior to the holidays, the Labour leader had intended to use the first week back after the holiday recess to focus on ministers' actions to reduce the living expenses. He set out this case recently in an article where he referenced measures including proposals to reduce utility costs. Unfortunately, his economic PR blitz has been blown out of the news agenda by Donald Trump, and his distinct strategy to ensuring his voters receive affordable power.
Not a single figure in British political life appears particularly eager on adopting the Trump approach – which is probably a positive development for other nations.
But there is a heated discussion under way about what the UK government should be willing to say about the American action to abduct the Venezuelan president, and replace him with someone expected to be more compliant with US demands, especially in regarding the nation's petroleum sector.
Keir Starmer has declined to criticise the US action, and the administration has dodged questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as legal. Recently, all EU states apart from Hungary issued a collective declaration which, while not explicitly condemning, did stress the value of international law, and by inference suggest Trump of disregarding it. It said:
The European Union urge calm and restraint by all actors, to prevent a worsening and to ensure a peaceful solution to the situation.
The Union reiterates that, under any conditions, the principles of the rules-based order and the UN Charter must be respected. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to defend those principles, as a pillar of the international security architecture.
The migration minister, was doing an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was refusing to say the Venezuelan leader's removal broke global statutes because he was afraid of antagonising Trump, the minister replied:
Absolutely not. UK ministers 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 consulting with key partners looking at the legal aspect 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 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 “a number of considerations”. But she was in a separate situation because she was not a government member, she said. She added:
Ultimately there is no escaping the fact. This is an unlawful move.
The Prime Minister may well want to hear what the reasoning is from the American government. I can get in front of everyone 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 speech in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving speeches, at mid-morning and lunchtime respectively. All the leaders 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: The Prime Minister's office holds a lobby briefing.
2.30pm: The home secretary, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is expected to give a update to MPs about the ongoing situation.
