Welcome back. Before Christmas, the Labour leader had intended to use the first week back after the holiday recess to focus on ministers' efforts to bring down the living expenses. He outlined this argument recently in an article where he cited steps including proposals to reduce energy bills. However, his cost of living media push has been overshadowed of the headlines by Donald Trump, and his entirely different approach to guaranteeing supporters receive cheap energy.
No one in mainstream UK politics appears particularly eager on embracing the American method – which is likely a positive development for other nations.
But there is a heated discussion ongoing about what the UK government should be willing to say about the American action to extradite the Venezuelan president, and install a successor with someone expected to be more compliant with US demands, 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 lawful. Last night, European Union members except one nation issued a joint statement which, while not overtly critical, did emphasise the value of international law, and by inference suggest Trump of ignoring it. It said:
The European Union call for calm and caution by all actors, to avoid a worsening and to ensure a peaceful solution to the situation.
The Union recalls that, under any conditions, 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.
Mike Tapp, was conducting an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was declining to say the Venezuelan leader's removal broke global statutes because he was afraid of antagonising Trump, the minister responded:
Not at all. The British government are and will remain in discussions with the US administration. And it’s for the United States to lay out the juridical rationale for the action that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also talking with close allies examining the juridical dimension of this.
But last night, in an interview on the BBC, Emily Thornberry (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.
Questioned about Starmer refusing to say that Trump was in breach of global rules, Thornberry said, because the PM was in government, he had to weigh up “multiple factors”. But she was in a different position because she was not a minister, she said. She went on:
In the end there is no getting away from it. This is an unlawful move.
The Prime Minister may well want to hear what the justification is from the American government. I can get in front of everyone and say I literally think of anything that could be a proper justification.
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 leaders are looking ahead to the Scottish parliament vote in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister is on a tour 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 questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is expected to give a update to MPs about Venezuela.
