🔗 Share this article

Welcome back. Prior to the holidays, Keir Starmer had planned to use the initial days back after the parliamentary break to focus on government actions to reduce the living expenses. He set out this case yesterday in an article where he referenced measures including proposals to reduce utility costs. However, Starmer’s economic PR blitz has been overshadowed of the news agenda by Donald Trump, and his entirely different strategy to ensuring his voters receive affordable power.

No one in British political life appears particularly eager on embracing 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 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 government has dodged questions about whether or not it considered what happened as legal. Recently, all EU states apart from Hungary issued a collective declaration which, while not explicitly condemning, did emphasise the importance of international law, and by implication suggest Trump of disregarding it. It said:

The European Union call for calm and restraint by all actors, to prevent escalation and to ensure a peaceful resolution to the crisis.

The Union reiterates that, under all circumstances, the principles of international law and the United Nations charter must be upheld. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to uphold those principles, as a pillar of the international security architecture.

Mike Tapp, was conducting an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was declining to say the Venezuelan leader's removal violated international law because he was afraid of upsetting Trump, Tapp responded:

Absolutely not. UK ministers 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 undertaken. And we’re also talking with close allies looking at the legal aspect of this.

But recently, in an appearance 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 area of control.

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

Ultimately there is no getting away from it. This is not a legal action.

The Prime Minister may well wish to listen to what the reasoning is from the US administration. I can get in front of us and say I literally think of anything that could be a valid excuse.

Here is the schedule for the day.

10am: John Swinney, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving talks, at 10.30am and 1pm respectively. All the leaders are looking ahead to the Holyrood elections in May.

Morning: Keir Starmer 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 anticipated to give a update to MPs about the ongoing situation.