Welcome back. Before Christmas, the Labour leader had planned to use the initial days back after the parliamentary break to focus on government actions to bring down the cost of living. He outlined this argument yesterday in an article where he cited measures including proposals to reduce energy bills. Unfortunately, Starmer’s economic PR blitz has been overshadowed of the headlines by Donald Trump, and his entirely different strategy to guaranteeing his voters get access to affordable power.
Not a single figure in British political life appears very keen on adopting the American method – which is probably 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 extradite Nicolás Maduro, and replace him with someone anticipated to be more cooperative with American interests, particularly in relation to the nation's petroleum sector.
Keir Starmer has declined to censure the US action, and the administration has avoided questions about whether or not it considered what happened as lawful. Recently, European Union members apart from one nation issued a collective declaration which, while not overtly critical, did stress the value of global rules, and by inference accuse Trump of disregarding it. It said:
The European Union call for calm and restraint by all actors, to prevent a worsening and to secure a peaceful resolution to the crisis.
The Union reiterates that, under any conditions, the principles of the rules-based order and the UN Charter must be respected. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to defend those standards, as a cornerstone of the international security architecture.
Mike Tapp, was conducting an series of media appearances this morning and, when asked if Starmer was declining to say the Maduro extradition broke international law because he was afraid of upsetting Trump, Tapp responded:
Absolutely not. UK ministers are and will remain in conversations with the Americans. And it’s for the Americans to explain the juridical rationale 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, 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 China’s Xi Jinping, that he could do what he wanted in his area of control.
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 weigh up “multiple factors”. 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 not a legal action.
[Starmer] may well want to listen to what the reasoning is from the US administration. I can state before everyone and say I cannot think of anything that could be a valid excuse.
Here is the schedule 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 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 tour 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 queries in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: Yvette Cooper, is expected to give a statement to MPs about the ongoing situation.
