🔗 Share this article

Good morning. Prior to the holidays, Keir Starmer had planned to use the first week back after the parliamentary break to focus on ministers' efforts to reduce the living expenses. He set out this argument recently in a piece where he referenced measures including plans to cut energy bills. However, Starmer’s economic PR blitz has been blown out of the headlines by the former US president, and his distinct strategy to ensuring 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 good news for other nations.

But there is a heated discussion under way 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 compliant with US demands, especially in relation to the nation's petroleum sector.

The Prime Minister has declined to censure the American intervention, and the government has avoided questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as legal. Recently, all EU states except one nation issued a joint statement which, while not explicitly condemning, did stress the importance of international law, and by inference accuse Trump of disregarding it. It said:

The European Union call for restraint and restraint by all parties, to prevent a worsening and to ensure a peaceful solution to the crisis.

The Union reiterates that, under all circumstances, the tenets 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 principles, as a cornerstone of the global security framework.

Mike Tapp, was conducting an series of media appearances this morning and, when asked if Starmer was refusing to say the Maduro extradition broke international law because he was worried of upsetting Trump, Tapp responded:

Not at all. The British government is, and will, be in discussions with the US administration. And it’s for the Americans to lay out the juridical rationale for the steps that they’ve taken. And we’re also talking with key partners examining the juridical dimension of this.

But last night, in an appearance on the BBC, Emily Thornberry (and a ex- 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 area of control.

Asked about Starmer refusing to say that Trump was in violation of global rules, Thornberry said, because the PM was in government, he had to weigh up “multiple factors”. But she was in a separate situation because she was not a government member, she said. She added:

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

The Prime Minister may well want to listen to what the justification is from the American government. I can state before 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 address in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving speeches, at mid-morning and 1pm in turn. All the leaders are looking ahead to the Holyrood elections in May.

Morning: The Prime Minister is on a tour 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: The foreign secretary, is expected to give a statement to MPs about Venezuela.