🔗 Share this article

Welcome back. Prior to the holidays, the Labour leader had planned to use the first week back after the holiday recess to highlight ministers' efforts to bring down the cost of living. He outlined this argument recently in an article where he cited measures including proposals to cut energy bills. However, Starmer’s economic PR blitz has been blown out of the news agenda by the former US president, and his distinct approach to ensuring his voters receive cheap energy.

No one in mainstream UK politics seems very keen on adopting the Trump approach – which is probably good news for Norway.

But there is a heated discussion ongoing about what the UK government should be prepared to say about the American action to extradite the Venezuelan president, and install a successor with someone anticipated to be more cooperative with US demands, especially in relation to the nation's petroleum sector.

The Prime Minister has refused to criticise the US action, and the administration has dodged questions about whether or not it considered what happened as legal. Recently, all EU states except one nation issued a collective declaration which, while not overtly critical, did emphasise the value of international law, and by inference suggest Trump of ignoring it. It said:

EU members urge restraint and caution by all actors, to avoid escalation and to ensure a peaceful solution to the situation.

The Union recalls that, under any conditions, the principles of international law and the United Nations charter must be respected. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to uphold those principles, 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 Venezuelan leader's removal broke global statutes because he was worried of antagonising Trump, the minister replied:

Absolutely not. The British government are and will remain in conversations with the US administration. And it’s for the United States to lay out the juridical rationale for the steps that they’ve taken. And we’re also consulting with key partners looking at the juridical dimension of this.

But recently, 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 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 global rules, Thornberry said, because the PM was in office, he had to weigh up “a number of considerations”. But she was in a separate situation because she was not a government member, she said. She went on:

Ultimately there is no escaping the fact. This is an unlawful move.

[Starmer] may well want to hear what the justification 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: John Swinney, gives a address in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving talks, at 10.30am 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: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.

2.30pm: Shabana Mahmood, takes queries in the Commons.

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