Welcome back. Before Christmas, the Labour leader had intended to use the first week back after the holiday recess to highlight ministers' efforts to bring down the cost of living. He set out this case recently in a piece where he cited measures including plans to cut energy bills. However, Starmer’s cost of living media push has been overshadowed of the news agenda by Donald Trump, and his distinct strategy to guaranteeing his voters receive affordable power.
No one in British political life appears very keen on adopting the American method – which is likely good news for Norway.
But there is a heated discussion ongoing about what the UK government should be prepared to say about Trump’s decision to abduct the Venezuelan president, and replace him with someone expected to be more compliant with American interests, particularly in regarding the country’s oil industry.
Keir Starmer has declined to criticise the American intervention, and the administration has dodged questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as legal. Last night, European Union members apart from Hungary issued a collective declaration which, while not explicitly condemning, did emphasise the importance of international law, and by implication accuse Trump of ignoring it. It said:
The European Union call for calm and caution by all parties, to prevent escalation and to secure a peaceful resolution to the crisis.
The EU reiterates that, under all circumstances, the tenets of international law and the UN Charter must be upheld. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to defend those standards, as a cornerstone of the global security framework.
The migration minister, was doing an series of media appearances this morning and, when asked if Starmer was declining to say the Venezuelan leader's removal broke international law because he was worried of antagonising Trump, Tapp responded:
Absolutely not. UK ministers are and will remain in discussions with the Americans. And it’s for the United States to explain the juridical rationale for the steps that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also consulting with close allies 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 deeply worried 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.
Asked about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in violation of international law, Thornberry said, because the PM was in office, he had to balance “a number of considerations”. But she was in a separate situation because she was not a minister, she said. She went on:
In the end there is no escaping the fact. This is not a legal action.
[Starmer] may well wish to listen to what the reasoning is from the US administration. I can get in front of us and say I cannot 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 Labour leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving talks, at 10.30am and 1pm in turn. All the party heads are gearing up to the Scottish parliament vote in May.
Morning: Keir Starmer is on a visit in Berkshire where he is scheduled to make comments to the media.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.
2.30pm: The home secretary, takes queries in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is anticipated to give a update to MPs about the ongoing situation.