Welcome back. Prior to the holidays, the Labour leader had planned to use the first week back after the parliamentary break to highlight ministers' efforts to bring down the cost of living. He set out this case recently in a piece where he referenced measures including proposals to cut utility costs. However, his cost of living media push has been blown out of the news agenda by the former US president, and his distinct approach to guaranteeing his voters get access to affordable power.
No one in British political life seems very keen on adopting the American method – which is probably a positive development for Norway.
But there is an intense debate ongoing about what the UK government should be willing to say about Trump’s decision to abduct the Venezuelan president, and replace him with someone anticipated to be more cooperative with American interests, especially in relation to the nation's petroleum sector.
Keir Starmer has declined to criticise the American intervention, and the administration has dodged questions about whether or not it considered what happened as legal. Recently, all EU states except Hungary issued a joint statement which, while not overtly critical, did emphasise the value of international law, and by implication accuse Trump of disregarding it. It said:
EU members urge restraint and restraint by all parties, to avoid a worsening and to ensure a peaceful resolution to the crisis.
The Union recalls that, under all circumstances, the tenets of international law and the United Nations charter must be respected. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to uphold those standards, 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 refusing to say the Venezuelan leader's removal 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 lay out the legal basis for the steps that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also talking with close allies examining the legal aspect of this.
But last night, in an interview on the BBC, the chair of the Commons foreign affairs committee (and a former 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.
Asked about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in violation of international law, 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 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 us and say I literally think of anything that could be a valid excuse.
Here is the agenda for the day.
10am: The Scottish first minister, gives a address in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving talks, at mid-morning and lunchtime in turn. All the leaders are gearing up to the Scottish parliament vote in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister is on a visit in Berkshire where he is scheduled to make comments to the press.
11.30am: The Prime Minister's office 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.
