Welcome back. Prior to the holidays, the Labour leader had intended to use the first week back after the parliamentary break to focus on ministers' actions to reduce the living expenses. He outlined this argument yesterday in an article where he cited measures including proposals to cut utility costs. However, Starmer’s economic PR blitz has been blown out of the headlines by the former US president, and his entirely different approach to guaranteeing his voters receive affordable power.
Not a single figure in mainstream UK politics appears very keen on embracing the American method – 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 Nicolás Maduro, and install a successor with someone anticipated to be more compliant with US demands, especially in regarding the nation's petroleum sector.
Keir Starmer has refused to criticise the American intervention, and the government has avoided questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as legal. Recently, all EU states except one nation issued a joint statement which, while not overtly critical, did emphasise the value of global rules, and by implication suggest Trump of ignoring it. It said:
The European Union urge calm and caution by all parties, to avoid escalation and to ensure a peaceful resolution to the crisis.
The EU recalls that, under all circumstances, the principles of international law and the UN Charter must be respected. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to defend those standards, as a cornerstone of the international security architecture.
Mike Tapp, was doing an series of media appearances this morning and, when asked if Starmer was declining to say the Maduro extradition violated international law because he was afraid of antagonising Trump, Tapp replied:
Absolutely not. The British government is, and will, be in conversations with the US administration. And it’s for the United States to explain the juridical rationale for the action that they’ve taken. And we’re also consulting with key partners examining the legal aspect of this.
But last night, 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.
Questioned about Starmer refusing to say that Trump was in violation of global rules, Thornberry said, because the PM was in government, he had to balance “multiple factors”. 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 an unlawful move.
The Prime Minister may well want to listen to what the justification is from the US administration. I can get in front of us and say I literally think of anything that could be a valid excuse.
Here is the schedule for the day.
10am: John Swinney, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving talks, at 10.30am and lunchtime respectively. 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 media.
11.30am: The Prime Minister's office holds a lobby briefing.
2.30pm: Shabana Mahmood, takes queries in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: Yvette Cooper, is anticipated to give a update to MPs about the ongoing situation.
