🔗 Share this article

Good morning. Before Christmas, the Labour leader had intended to use the first week back after the holiday recess to highlight ministers' actions to reduce the cost of living. He outlined this case yesterday in a piece where he cited steps including plans to reduce utility costs. However, Starmer’s economic PR blitz has been blown out of the headlines by the former US president, and his distinct approach to ensuring his voters receive affordable power.

Not a single figure in British political life seems very keen on adopting the Trump approach – which is likely a positive development for Norway.

But there is a heated discussion under way 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 cooperative with US demands, especially in regarding the country’s oil industry.

The Prime Minister has declined to criticise the American intervention, and the government has avoided questions about whether or not it considered what happened as lawful. Last night, all EU states except Hungary issued a collective declaration which, while not explicitly condemning, did emphasise the value of global rules, and by inference accuse Trump of disregarding it. It said:

The European Union urge calm and caution by all actors, to prevent escalation and to secure a peaceful resolution to the situation.

The EU recalls that, under any conditions, the tenets of the rules-based order and the United Nations charter must be respected. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to defend those principles, as a pillar of the international security architecture.

The migration minister, was doing 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, Tapp replied:

Not at all. The British government are and will remain in discussions with the US administration. And it’s for the Americans to explain the legal basis for the steps that they’ve taken. And we’re also consulting with close allies looking at the legal aspect of this.

But last night, 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 the Russian leader and China’s Xi Jinping, that he could do what he wanted in his sphere of influence.

Questioned about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in violation of international law, Thornberry said, because the PM was in office, he had to balance “multiple factors”. But she was in a separate situation 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 hear what the reasoning is from the American government. I can get in front of us 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 address in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving speeches, at mid-morning and lunchtime in turn. All the leaders 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 speak to the media.

11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.

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

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