🔗 Share this article

Welcome back. Prior to the holidays, Keir Starmer had planned to use the initial days back after the holiday recess to highlight government efforts to reduce the living expenses. He outlined this argument yesterday in a piece where he referenced measures including plans to reduce utility costs. Unfortunately, Starmer’s cost of living PR blitz has been overshadowed of the headlines by Donald Trump, and his entirely different approach to ensuring his voters receive affordable power.

No one in mainstream UK politics seems very keen on embracing the American method – which is probably a positive development for Norway.

But there is a heated discussion under way about what the UK government should be prepared to say about the American action to abduct the Venezuelan president, and install a successor with someone anticipated to be more compliant with American interests, particularly in regarding the country’s oil industry.

The Prime Minister has refused to censure the US action, and the government has dodged questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as lawful. Recently, all EU states apart from one nation issued a joint statement which, while not explicitly condemning, did emphasise the value of global rules, and by implication accuse Trump of ignoring it. It said:

The European Union call for restraint and restraint by all actors, to prevent escalation and to secure a peaceful solution to the situation.

The Union recalls that, under all circumstances, the tenets of international law and the UN Charter must be respected. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to uphold those standards, as a pillar of the international security architecture.

Mike Tapp, was doing an series of media appearances this morning and, when asked if Starmer was refusing to say the Maduro extradition broke global statutes because he was afraid of antagonising Trump, Tapp responded:

Not at all. The British government are and will remain in discussions with the Americans. And it’s for the Americans to explain the legal basis for the steps that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also talking with close allies examining the juridical dimension of this.

But recently, in an appearance 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 China’s Xi Jinping, that he could do what he wanted in his sphere of influence.

Questioned about Starmer refusing to say that Trump was in violation of international law, Thornberry said, because the PM was in government, he had to weigh up “a number of considerations”. But she was in a separate situation because she was not a minister, she said. She went on:

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

[Starmer] may well wish to listen to 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 agenda for the day.

10am: The Scottish first minister, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish Labour leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving talks, at 10.30am and 1pm respectively. All the party heads are looking ahead to the Scottish parliament vote in May.

Morning: Keir Starmer is on a visit in Berkshire where he is scheduled to make comments to the press.

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

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

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