🔗 Share this article

Welcome back. Prior to the holidays, Keir Starmer had intended to use the initial days back after the parliamentary break to focus on government efforts to reduce the living expenses. He set out this argument yesterday in an article where he referenced measures including plans to cut energy bills. Unfortunately, Starmer’s economic PR blitz has been overshadowed of the news agenda by the former US president, and his entirely different strategy to guaranteeing supporters get access to affordable power.

No one in mainstream UK politics seems very keen on adopting the Trump approach – which is likely a positive development for Norway.

But there is an intense debate under way about what the UK government should be willing to say about the American action to abduct the Venezuelan president, and replace him with someone anticipated to be more compliant with US demands, especially in relation to the nation's petroleum sector.

Keir Starmer has declined to censure the US action, and the government has avoided questions about whether or not it considered what happened as lawful. Recently, all EU states except Hungary issued a joint statement which, while not explicitly condemning, did stress the value of international law, and by implication suggest Trump of disregarding it. It said:

EU members call for calm and caution by all parties, to prevent escalation and to secure a peaceful solution to the situation.

The EU recalls that, under all circumstances, the tenets of the rules-based order and the United Nations charter must be upheld. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to defend those principles, as a cornerstone of the international security architecture.

Mike Tapp, was conducting an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was refusing to say the Maduro extradition broke international law because he was afraid of upsetting Trump, the minister responded:

Absolutely not. The British government are and will remain in discussions with the US administration. And it’s for the Americans to lay out the legal basis for the action that they’ve taken. And we’re also consulting 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 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.

Asked about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in breach of global rules, she said, because the PM was in office, he had to weigh up “multiple factors”. But she was in a separate situation because she was not a minister, she said. She added:

In the end there is no getting away from it. This is an unlawful move.

[Starmer] may well want to hear what the justification is from the American government. I can get in front of us and say I literally think of anything that could be a valid excuse.

Here is the agenda for the day.

10am: John Swinney, 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 due to speak to the media.

11.30am: The Prime Minister's office holds a press briefing.

2.30pm: The home secretary, takes questions in the Commons.

After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is anticipated to give a statement to MPs about Venezuela.