Welcome back. Before Christmas, the Labour leader had intended to use the first week back after the parliamentary break to focus on government actions to reduce the living expenses. He set out this case yesterday in a piece where he cited steps including proposals to cut energy bills. However, Starmer’s economic media push has been blown out of the news agenda by the former US president, and his distinct approach to ensuring his voters receive affordable power.
Not a single figure in mainstream UK politics appears particularly eager on embracing the American method – which is probably good news for Norway.
But there is a heated discussion under way about what the UK government should be prepared to say about the American action to abduct Nicolás Maduro, and replace him with someone anticipated to be more compliant with American interests, especially in relation to the nation's petroleum sector.
Keir Starmer has refused to criticise the US action, and the government has avoided questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as legal. Last night, all EU states apart from Hungary issued a joint statement 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 restraint by all parties, to prevent escalation and to ensure a peaceful solution to the crisis.
The Union reiterates that, under any conditions, the principles of international law and the United Nations charter must be respected. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to uphold those principles, as a cornerstone of the global security framework.
Mike Tapp, was conducting 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 worried of upsetting Trump, Tapp responded:
Not at all. The British government is, and will, be in discussions with the US administration. And it’s for the Americans to explain the legal basis for the steps that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also talking with key partners examining the juridical dimension of this.
But last night, in an appearance on the BBC, Emily Thornberry (and a former shadow attorney general), said she was very concerned about the way Trump seems to think, like the Russian leader 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 breach of global rules, Thornberry said, because the PM was in government, he had to balance “a number of considerations”. 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.
The Prime Minister may well wish 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 proper justification.
Here is the schedule for the day.
10am: John Swinney, gives a address in Glasgow. The Scottish Labour leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving talks, at 10.30am and lunchtime in turn. All the leaders are gearing up to the Scottish parliament vote in May.
Morning: Keir Starmer is on a visit in Berkshire where he is due to speak to the media.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a press briefing.
2.30pm: Shabana Mahmood, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: Yvette Cooper, is anticipated to give a update to MPs about Venezuela.
