Good morning. Prior to the holidays, the Labour leader had intended to use the initial days back after the holiday recess to highlight ministers' efforts to reduce the living expenses. He outlined this case yesterday in an article 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 seems particularly eager on adopting 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 prepared to say about Trump’s decision to extradite Nicolás Maduro, and install a successor with someone anticipated to be more cooperative with American interests, particularly in regarding the nation's petroleum sector.
Keir Starmer has declined to criticise the American intervention, and the government has avoided questions about whether or not it considered what happened as legal. Recently, all EU states apart from one nation issued a joint statement which, while not overtly critical, did emphasise the importance of global rules, and by implication suggest Trump of ignoring it. It said:
EU members urge calm and caution by all actors, to avoid escalation and to ensure a peaceful solution to the crisis.
The EU recalls 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 standards, as a pillar of the international security architecture.
Mike Tapp, was conducting an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was declining to say the Maduro extradition violated international law because he was worried of antagonising Trump, Tapp replied:
Not at all. UK ministers are and will remain in conversations with the US administration. And it’s for the Americans to lay out the legal basis for the action that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also consulting with key partners looking at the juridical dimension of this.
But recently, in an interview on the BBC, Emily Thornberry (and a ex- shadow attorney general), said she was very concerned about the way Trump seems to think, like Russia’s Vladimir Putin and China’s Xi Jinping, that he could do what he wanted in his sphere of influence.
Asked about Starmer refusing to say that Trump was in breach of global rules, she 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 US administration. I can get in front of everyone 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 opposition leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving talks, at 10.30am and 1pm respectively. All the leaders are looking ahead to the Scottish parliament vote in May.
Morning: Keir Starmer is on a tour in Berkshire where he is scheduled to make comments to the media.
11.30am: The Prime Minister's office holds a press briefing.
2.30pm: The home secretary, takes queries in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: Yvette Cooper, is anticipated to give a statement to MPs about Venezuela.
