Good morning. Prior to the holidays, the Labour leader had intended to use the initial days back after the holiday recess to focus on government actions to reduce the cost of living. He outlined this case recently in an article where he referenced measures including plans to cut energy bills. However, his cost of living PR blitz has been overshadowed of the headlines by Donald Trump, and his entirely different strategy to ensuring supporters receive cheap energy.
No one in mainstream UK politics appears particularly eager on adopting the Trump approach – which is probably good news for other nations.
But there is a heated discussion ongoing about what the UK government should be willing to say about the American action to abduct the Venezuelan president, and install a successor with someone anticipated to be more compliant with US demands, particularly in relation to the nation's petroleum sector.
The Prime Minister has declined to criticise the US action, and the administration has avoided questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as legal. Last night, all EU states except one nation issued a joint statement which, while not explicitly condemning, did stress the importance of international law, and by implication suggest Trump of disregarding it. It said:
EU members urge restraint and caution by all parties, to avoid a worsening and to secure a peaceful solution to the situation.
The Union reiterates that, under any conditions, the tenets of international law and the UN Charter must be upheld. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to uphold those principles, as a cornerstone of the global security framework.
Mike Tapp, was conducting an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was refusing to say the Maduro extradition broke global statutes because he was afraid of upsetting Trump, the minister replied:
Not at all. UK ministers are and will remain in discussions with the Americans. And it’s for the Americans to lay out the juridical rationale for the steps that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also consulting with key partners examining the juridical dimension of this.
But last night, in an appearance on the BBC, Emily Thornberry (and a ex- shadow attorney general), said she was very concerned about the way Trump seems to think, like the Russian leader and China’s Xi Jinping, that he could do what he wanted in his sphere of influence.
Questioned about Starmer refusing to say that Trump was in breach of international law, Thornberry said, because the PM was in office, he had to weigh up “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 escaping the fact. This is an unlawful move.
The Prime Minister may well wish to listen to what the reasoning is from the American government. 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 Labour leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving talks, at 10.30am and 1pm respectively. All the party heads are looking ahead to the Scottish parliament vote in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister is on a tour in Berkshire where he is due to make comments to the press.
11.30am: The Prime Minister's office 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 Venezuela.
