🔗 Share this article

Welcome back. Before Christmas, the Labour leader had intended to use the initial days back after the holiday recess to focus on government efforts to bring down the cost of living. He outlined this case recently in a piece where he referenced measures including plans to reduce utility costs. Unfortunately, his cost of living media push has been overshadowed of the news agenda by the former US president, and his entirely different strategy to ensuring his voters get access to affordable power.

Not a single figure in British political life seems very keen on adopting the American method – which is likely good news for Norway.

But there is an intense debate ongoing about what the UK government should be willing to say about Trump’s decision to extradite the Venezuelan president, and replace him with someone expected to be more compliant with US demands, especially in regarding the country’s oil industry.

Keir Starmer has declined to criticise the US action, and the administration has avoided questions about whether or not it considered what happened as legal. Recently, European Union members except one nation issued a collective declaration which, while not explicitly condemning, did stress the importance of international law, and by implication accuse Trump of ignoring it. It said:

EU members urge restraint and caution by all parties, to prevent escalation and to ensure a peaceful solution to the crisis.

The EU reiterates that, under all circumstances, the tenets of the rules-based order and the UN Charter must be respected. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to uphold those standards, as a cornerstone of the global security framework.

Mike Tapp, was conducting an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was declining to say the Maduro extradition violated international law because he was worried of antagonising Trump, the minister replied:

Absolutely not. The British government are and will remain in conversations with the Americans. And it’s for the Americans to explain the juridical rationale for the action that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also consulting with key partners examining the juridical dimension of this.

But last night, in an appearance on the BBC, the chair of the Commons foreign affairs committee (and a ex- shadow attorney general), said she was deeply worried about the way Trump seems to think, like the Russian leader and the Chinese president, that he could do what he wanted in his sphere of influence.

Asked about Starmer refusing to say that Trump was in breach of global rules, she said, because the PM was in government, he had to weigh up “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 not a legal action.

The Prime Minister may well wish to hear what the reasoning is from the US administration. I can get in front of everyone and say I literally think of anything that could be a proper justification.

Here is the schedule for the day.

10am: John Swinney, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving talks, at 10.30am and 1pm in turn. All the party heads are gearing up to the Scottish parliament vote in May.

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

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

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

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