Welcome back. Before Christmas, Keir Starmer had planned to use the initial days back after the holiday recess to focus on ministers' actions to reduce the living expenses. He set out this case yesterday in a piece where he referenced measures including proposals to cut utility costs. Unfortunately, his economic media push has been blown out of the headlines by Donald Trump, and his distinct strategy to guaranteeing supporters get access to affordable power.
Not a single figure in British political life appears very keen on adopting the Trump approach – which is probably good news for Norway.
But there is a heated discussion under way about what the UK government should be willing to say about Trump’s decision to extradite Nicolás Maduro, and install a successor with someone expected to be more cooperative with US demands, particularly in relation to the nation's petroleum sector.
The Prime Minister has declined to censure the American intervention, and the government has avoided questions about whether or not it considered what happened as lawful. Recently, European Union members except Hungary issued a collective declaration which, while not overtly critical, did emphasise the importance of international law, and by inference accuse Trump of disregarding it. It said:
The European Union urge restraint and caution by all actors, to avoid a worsening and to ensure a peaceful solution to the crisis.
The EU reiterates that, under any conditions, 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 uphold those principles, as a pillar of the global security framework.
The migration minister, was conducting an series of media appearances this morning and, when asked if Starmer was declining to say the Maduro extradition broke global statutes because he was worried of antagonising Trump, the minister responded:
Absolutely not. The British government is, and will, be in discussions with the Americans. And it’s for the Americans to lay out the juridical rationale for the action that they’ve taken. And we’re also consulting with key partners looking at the legal aspect of this.
But recently, in an interview on the BBC, Emily Thornberry (and a former shadow attorney general), said she was very concerned 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 sphere of influence.
Asked about Starmer refusing to say that Trump was in violation of international law, Thornberry 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 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 American government. I can get in front of 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 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 tour in Berkshire where he is due to speak to the media.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.
2.30pm: Shabana Mahmood, takes queries in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is anticipated to give a statement to MPs about Venezuela.
