Good morning. Before Christmas, Keir Starmer had intended to use the initial days back after the holiday recess to focus on government efforts to reduce the living expenses. He set out this case yesterday in a piece where he referenced measures including plans to cut utility costs. However, his economic media push has been blown out of the news agenda by the former US president, and his distinct approach to guaranteeing supporters receive affordable power.
Not a single figure in mainstream UK politics appears particularly eager on adopting the Trump approach – which is probably a positive development for Norway.
But there is a heated discussion ongoing about what the UK government should be willing to say about the American action to abduct Nicolás Maduro, and install a successor with someone expected to be more cooperative with US demands, particularly in relation to the nation's petroleum sector.
The Prime Minister has refused 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 stress the value of international law, and by inference suggest Trump of ignoring it. It said:
EU members call for restraint and caution by all parties, to prevent a worsening and to ensure a peaceful solution to the crisis.
The Union reiterates that, under all circumstances, the principles of the rules-based order 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 cornerstone of the global security framework.
The migration minister, was conducting an series of media appearances this morning and, when asked if Starmer was refusing to say the Maduro extradition broke global statutes because he was afraid of antagonising Trump, the minister responded:
Absolutely not. UK ministers are and will remain in discussions with the Americans. And it’s for the United States to explain the legal basis for the action that they’ve taken. And we’re also consulting with close allies looking at the juridical dimension of this.
But recently, in an appearance on the BBC, Emily Thornberry (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 area of control.
Questioned about Starmer refusing to say that Trump was in violation of international law, she 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 minister, she said. She added:
In the end there is no escaping the fact. This is not a legal action.
The Prime Minister may well wish to listen to what the reasoning is from the American government. I can state before everyone and say I literally think of anything that could be a proper justification.
Here is the schedule for the day.
10am: John Swinney, gives a address in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving speeches, at mid-morning and lunchtime in turn. All the party heads are gearing up to the Holyrood elections in May.
Morning: Keir Starmer is on a visit in Berkshire where he is due to make comments to the press.
11.30am: The Prime Minister's office holds a lobby briefing.
2.30pm: The home secretary, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: Yvette Cooper, is expected to give a update to MPs about the ongoing situation.
