🔗 Share this article

Good morning. Prior to the holidays, Keir Starmer had intended to use the initial days back after the parliamentary break to focus on government actions to reduce the living expenses. He set out this argument recently in a piece where he cited steps including plans to reduce utility costs. Unfortunately, Starmer’s cost of living PR blitz has been blown out of the headlines by the former US president, and his distinct strategy to ensuring supporters get access to cheap energy.

No one in mainstream UK politics appears very keen on embracing the American method – which is likely good news for Norway.

But there is a heated discussion ongoing about what the UK government should be willing to say about the American action to abduct the Venezuelan president, and install a successor with someone expected to be more cooperative with American interests, particularly in regarding the nation's petroleum sector.

The Prime Minister has refused to censure the American intervention, and the government has avoided questions about whether or not it considered what happened as lawful. Recently, all EU states apart from one nation issued a collective declaration which, while not overtly critical, did stress the importance of international law, and by implication accuse Trump of ignoring it. It said:

EU members urge calm and restraint by all parties, to prevent a worsening and to secure a peaceful resolution to the situation.

The Union recalls that, under all circumstances, the tenets of international law and the UN Charter must be upheld. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to uphold those standards, as a cornerstone of the global security framework.

Mike Tapp, was conducting an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was declining to say the Maduro extradition violated global statutes because he was afraid of antagonising Trump, Tapp replied:

Absolutely not. The British government is, and will, be in conversations with the US administration. And it’s for the United States to explain the legal basis for the action that they’ve taken. And we’re also consulting with close allies examining the legal aspect 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 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 breach of global rules, Thornberry said, because the PM was in office, he had to balance “a number of considerations”. But she was in a different position because she was not a minister, she said. She went on:

In the end there is no escaping the fact. This is not a legal action.

The Prime Minister may well wish to listen to what the reasoning is from the American government. I can get in front of everyone 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 opposition leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving talks, at mid-morning and 1pm respectively. All the party heads are looking ahead to the Scottish parliament vote in May.

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

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

2.30pm: The home secretary, takes queries in the Commons.

After 3.30pm: Yvette Cooper, is anticipated to give a statement to MPs about Venezuela.