🔗 Share this article

Good morning. Before Christmas, the Labour leader had planned to use the first week back after the holiday recess to highlight government efforts to reduce the cost of living. He set out this argument recently in a piece where he cited steps including plans to cut utility costs. Unfortunately, Starmer’s economic PR blitz has been overshadowed of the news agenda by the former US president, and his entirely different strategy to guaranteeing supporters get access to cheap energy.

No one in British political life seems very keen on adopting the American method – which is probably a positive development 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 expected to be more cooperative with American interests, especially 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 except Hungary issued a collective declaration which, while not overtly critical, did stress the importance of international law, and by implication suggest Trump of ignoring it. It said:

The European Union urge restraint and restraint by all actors, to avoid escalation and to secure a peaceful resolution to the crisis.

The Union recalls that, under all circumstances, the principles of the rules-based order and the UN Charter must be upheld. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to defend 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 refusing to say the Venezuelan leader's removal broke international law because he was afraid of upsetting Trump, the minister replied:

Absolutely not. The British government is, and will, be in discussions with the Americans. And it’s for the Americans to explain the juridical rationale for the steps that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also consulting with close allies examining the juridical dimension of this.

But last night, in an interview 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 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 international law, 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 minister, she said. She went on:

Ultimately there is no getting away from it. This is an unlawful move.

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

Here is the schedule for the day.

10am: The Scottish first minister, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving speeches, at mid-morning and 1pm in turn. All the leaders are gearing up to the Holyrood elections in May.

Morning: Keir Starmer is on a tour in Berkshire where he is scheduled to speak to the media.

11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.

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

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