🔗 Share this article

Good morning. Prior to the holidays, the Labour leader had intended to use the first week back after the holiday recess to focus on ministers' actions to reduce the living expenses. He set out this case yesterday in a piece where he cited steps including plans to cut energy bills. However, Starmer’s economic media push has been overshadowed of the headlines by Donald Trump, and his distinct strategy to guaranteeing supporters receive cheap energy.

Not a single figure in mainstream UK politics appears particularly eager on embracing the Trump approach – which is probably a positive development for other nations.

But there is a heated discussion under way about what the UK government should be prepared to say about Trump’s decision to extradite the Venezuelan president, and replace him with someone expected to be more cooperative with American interests, especially in relation to the nation's petroleum sector.

Keir Starmer has refused to criticise the American intervention, and the government has dodged questions about whether or not it considered what happened as legal. Recently, all EU states except Hungary issued a collective declaration which, while not overtly critical, did stress the value of global rules, and by implication suggest Trump of ignoring it. It said:

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

The Union reiterates that, under any conditions, the tenets of the rules-based order and the UN Charter must be respected. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to uphold those standards, as a cornerstone 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 global statutes because he was worried of upsetting Trump, Tapp responded:

Absolutely not. The British government is, and will, be in discussions with the US administration. And it’s for the Americans to lay out the legal basis for the action that they’ve taken. And we’re also talking with close allies looking at the juridical dimension of this.

But recently, in an appearance on the BBC, the chair of the Commons foreign affairs committee (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 area of control.

Asked about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in breach 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 government member, she said. She went on:

In the end there is no getting away from it. 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 state before everyone and say I cannot think of anything that could be a valid excuse.

Here is the agenda for the day.

10am: John Swinney, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition 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: The Prime Minister is on a visit in Berkshire where he is due to speak to the press.

11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.

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

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