🔗 Share this article

Good morning. Before Christmas, Keir Starmer had intended to use the initial days back after the parliamentary break to focus on government actions to bring down the living expenses. He set out this argument recently in a piece where he referenced measures including proposals to reduce energy bills. Unfortunately, Starmer’s economic media push has been overshadowed of the news agenda by the former US president, and his entirely different approach to guaranteeing his voters receive affordable power.

No one in British political life appears particularly eager on adopting the American method – which is probably good news for other nations.

But there is a heated discussion ongoing about what the UK government should be willing to say about the American action to extradite Nicolás Maduro, and replace him with someone expected to be more compliant with American interests, particularly in regarding the nation's petroleum sector.

Keir Starmer has refused to censure the American intervention, and the administration has avoided questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as legal. Recently, all EU states apart from one nation 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:

EU members urge restraint and caution by all parties, to avoid a worsening and to secure a peaceful solution to the crisis.

The EU reiterates that, under any conditions, the tenets of international law and the UN Charter must be respected. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to uphold those standards, as a pillar of the global security framework.

The migration minister, was doing an series of media appearances this morning and, when asked if Starmer was refusing to say the Maduro extradition broke global statutes because he was afraid of antagonising Trump, the minister replied:

Absolutely not. UK ministers are and will remain in discussions with the Americans. And it’s for the United States to explain the juridical rationale for the action that they’ve taken. And we’re also consulting with key partners examining the juridical dimension of this.

But last night, in an appearance 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 sphere of influence.

Questioned about Starmer refusing to say that Trump was in breach of international law, 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:

In the end there is no escaping the fact. This is not a legal action.

The Prime Minister may well want to listen to what the justification is from the US administration. I can state before us and say I cannot think of anything that could be a valid excuse.

Here is the agenda 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 mid-morning and lunchtime respectively. All the leaders are gearing up to the Holyrood elections in May.

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

11.30am: The Prime Minister's office holds a lobby briefing.

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

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