🔗 Share this article

Good morning. Before Christmas, the Labour leader had planned to use the first week back after the parliamentary break to highlight ministers' efforts to reduce the cost of living. He set out this argument recently in a piece where he cited measures including plans to cut energy bills. Unfortunately, Starmer’s economic PR blitz has been blown out of the headlines by the former US president, and his distinct strategy to guaranteeing his voters get access to cheap energy.

Not a single figure in British political life appears particularly eager on embracing the American method – which is likely good news for other nations.

But there is an intense debate ongoing about what the UK government should be willing to say about Trump’s decision to extradite Nicolás Maduro, and install a successor with someone anticipated to be more compliant with US demands, particularly in relation to the nation's petroleum sector.

The Prime Minister has declined to criticise the American intervention, and the administration has avoided questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as legal. Recently, European Union members except one nation issued a collective declaration which, while not explicitly condemning, did emphasise the value of international law, and by inference accuse Trump of disregarding it. It said:

The European Union urge calm and caution by all parties, to prevent a worsening and to ensure a peaceful solution to the crisis.

The Union recalls that, under any conditions, the tenets of the rules-based order and the United Nations charter must be upheld. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to uphold those principles, as a pillar of the global security framework.

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

Not at all. UK ministers is, and will, be in conversations with the Americans. And it’s for the Americans to explain the legal basis for the action that they’ve taken. And we’re also consulting with key partners looking at the legal aspect 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 the Russian leader and the Chinese president, that he could do what he wanted in his sphere of influence.

Asked about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in breach 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 escaping the fact. This is not a legal action.

The Prime Minister may well want to listen to what the reasoning is from the American government. I can get in front of us and say I cannot think of anything that could be a valid excuse.

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 speeches, at mid-morning and 1pm in turn. All the leaders are gearing up to the Scottish parliament vote in May.

Morning: The Prime Minister is on a tour in Berkshire where he is due to make comments to the media.

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

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

After 3.30pm: Yvette Cooper, is expected to give a update to MPs about Venezuela.