🔗 Share this article

Good morning. Before Christmas, the Labour leader had intended to use the first week back after the parliamentary break to highlight ministers' efforts to bring down the cost of living. He outlined this case recently in a piece where he cited steps including plans to cut energy bills. However, his economic media push has been overshadowed of the news agenda by the former US president, and his entirely different approach to ensuring supporters receive affordable power.

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

But there is an intense debate ongoing about what the UK government should be prepared to say about the American action to extradite the Venezuelan president, and install a successor with someone anticipated to be more compliant with US demands, particularly in relation to the country’s oil industry.

The Prime Minister has declined to censure the American intervention, and the administration has dodged questions about whether or not it considered what happened as lawful. Recently, European Union members apart from one nation issued a joint statement which, while not overtly critical, did stress the value of international law, and by inference suggest Trump of ignoring it. It said:

EU members urge calm and restraint by all actors, to prevent escalation and to ensure a peaceful solution to the situation.

The Union reiterates that, under any conditions, the tenets of the rules-based order and the United Nations charter must be upheld. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to defend those principles, as a pillar of the global security framework.

Mike Tapp, was conducting an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was refusing to say the Venezuelan leader's removal broke global statutes because he was afraid of antagonising Trump, Tapp responded:

Absolutely not. UK ministers is, and will, be in conversations with the US administration. And it’s for the United States to explain the legal basis for the steps that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also talking 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 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 global rules, she 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 government member, she said. She went on:

In the end there is no escaping the fact. This is an unlawful move.

[Starmer] may well want to listen to what the reasoning is from the US administration. I can get in front of everyone 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 Labour leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving talks, at 10.30am and lunchtime 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.