Welcome back. Prior to the holidays, Keir Starmer had planned to use the first week back after the holiday recess to focus on ministers' actions to reduce the living expenses. He set out this argument recently in an article where he cited steps including plans to cut energy bills. Unfortunately, Starmer’s cost of living media push has been overshadowed of the headlines by the former US president, and his entirely different approach to ensuring supporters receive affordable power.
Not a single figure in mainstream UK politics seems particularly eager on embracing the Trump approach – which is probably good news 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 extradite the Venezuelan president, and install a successor with someone anticipated to be more compliant with US demands, especially in regarding the nation's petroleum sector.
The Prime Minister has refused to criticise the US action, and the administration has avoided questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as lawful. Recently, European Union members except one nation issued a joint statement which, while not explicitly condemning, did emphasise the value of global rules, and by inference accuse Trump of ignoring it. It said:
The European Union call for restraint and caution by all parties, to avoid a worsening and to secure a peaceful resolution to the crisis.
The Union recalls that, under any conditions, the tenets of the rules-based order and the United Nations charter must be upheld. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to defend those standards, as a cornerstone of the global security framework.
Mike Tapp, was doing an interview round 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 replied:
Absolutely not. The British government are and will remain 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 talking with close allies looking at the legal aspect of this.
But recently, in an appearance on the BBC, Emily Thornberry (and a former shadow attorney general), said she was deeply worried 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 declining to say that Trump was in violation of international law, Thornberry said, because the PM was in government, he had to weigh up “multiple factors”. But she was in a different position because she was not a minister, she said. She went on:
In the end there is no getting away from it. This is not a legal action.
The Prime Minister may well want to hear what the reasoning is from the US administration. I can get in front of everyone 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 opposition leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving talks, at mid-morning and 1pm in turn. All the party heads are gearing up to the Holyrood elections in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister is on a tour in Berkshire where he is scheduled to make comments to the media.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a press briefing.
2.30pm: The home secretary, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: Yvette Cooper, is anticipated to give a update to MPs about Venezuela.
