Welcome back. Before Christmas, the Labour leader had planned to use the first week back after the parliamentary break to highlight ministers' actions to reduce the living expenses. He outlined this case yesterday in an article where he cited measures including proposals to cut utility costs. However, his economic media push has been blown out of the news agenda by Donald Trump, and his entirely different approach to guaranteeing supporters receive affordable power.
Not a single figure in mainstream UK politics seems particularly eager on embracing the American method – which is likely a positive development for other nations.
But there is an intense debate under way about what the UK government should be willing to say about Trump’s decision to abduct Nicolás Maduro, and install a successor with someone anticipated to be more cooperative with US demands, especially in regarding the nation's petroleum sector.
Keir Starmer has refused to criticise the American intervention, and the government has dodged questions about whether or not it considered what happened as legal. Last night, all EU states apart from one nation issued a collective declaration which, while not overtly critical, did emphasise the value of global rules, and by inference accuse Trump of disregarding it. It said:
EU members urge restraint and caution by all actors, to avoid escalation and to ensure a peaceful solution to the situation.
The Union recalls that, under all circumstances, the principles of international law and the UN Charter must be upheld. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to defend those standards, as a pillar of the global security framework.
The migration minister, was doing an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was refusing to say the Venezuelan leader's removal broke international law because he was worried of upsetting Trump, Tapp replied:
Not at all. The British government is, and will, be in conversations with the US administration. And it’s for the Americans to lay out the juridical rationale for the action that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also consulting with close allies examining the juridical dimension of this.
But recently, in an interview on the BBC, the chair of the Commons foreign affairs committee (and a ex- 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.
Asked about Starmer refusing to say that Trump was in violation of international law, she 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 government member, she said. She added:
Ultimately there is no escaping the fact. This is an unlawful move.
The Prime Minister may well want to hear what the reasoning is from the American government. 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: John Swinney, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving talks, at mid-morning and 1pm in turn. All the party heads are gearing up to the Scottish parliament vote in May.
Morning: Keir Starmer is on a tour in Berkshire where he is due to speak to the media.
11.30am: Downing Street 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.
