🔗 Share this article

Welcome back. Before Christmas, Keir Starmer had planned to use the first week back after the holiday recess to focus on ministers' efforts to reduce the living expenses. He set out this case recently in an article where he cited measures including plans to reduce energy bills. However, his cost of living PR blitz has been overshadowed of the headlines by the former US president, and his distinct approach to guaranteeing his voters receive affordable power.

No one in mainstream UK politics appears particularly eager on adopting the Trump approach – which is probably good news for Norway.

But there is a heated discussion ongoing about what the UK government should be willing to say about Trump’s decision to abduct Nicolás Maduro, and install a successor with someone anticipated to be more compliant with American interests, particularly in relation to the nation's petroleum sector.

Keir Starmer has declined to censure the American intervention, and the administration has dodged questions about whether or not it considered what happened as lawful. Last night, all EU states except one nation issued a collective declaration which, while not explicitly condemning, did stress the importance of international law, and by inference accuse Trump of disregarding it. It said:

EU members call for calm and caution by all actors, to avoid a worsening and to ensure a peaceful resolution to the crisis.

The EU recalls that, under any conditions, the principles of the rules-based order and the United Nations charter must be upheld. Permanent 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 series of media appearances this morning and, when asked if Starmer was refusing to say the Maduro extradition broke international law because he was worried of antagonising Trump, the minister replied:

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 legal basis for the action that they’ve taken. And we’re also consulting with close allies examining the juridical dimension of this.

But recently, in an appearance on the BBC, Emily Thornberry (and a ex- 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 sphere of influence.

Asked about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in violation of global rules, Thornberry said, because the PM was in office, he had to balance “multiple factors”. But she was in a different position 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 wish to hear what the reasoning is from the American government. I can state before us and say I literally think of anything that could be a proper justification.

Here is the agenda for the day.

10am: John Swinney, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish Labour leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving speeches, at mid-morning and lunchtime respectively. All the party heads 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 press briefing.

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

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