🔗 Share this article

Welcome back. Prior to the holidays, the Labour leader had planned to use the initial days back after the parliamentary break to focus on government actions to reduce the cost of living. He outlined this case yesterday in an article where he referenced steps including proposals to cut energy bills. Unfortunately, his economic media push has been blown out of the headlines by Donald Trump, and his distinct approach to guaranteeing his voters receive affordable power.

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

But there is a heated discussion ongoing about what the UK government should be willing to say about the American action to abduct the Venezuelan president, and install a successor with someone expected to be more compliant with American interests, especially in regarding the nation's petroleum sector.

The Prime Minister has refused to criticise the American intervention, and the administration has dodged questions about whether or not it considered what happened as legal. Recently, European Union members apart from Hungary issued a collective declaration which, while not explicitly condemning, did emphasise the importance of global rules, and by implication suggest Trump of disregarding it. It said:

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

The EU recalls that, under all circumstances, the principles 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 uphold those principles, as a cornerstone 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 Venezuelan leader's removal violated global statutes because he was afraid of antagonising Trump, the minister replied:

Not at all. The British government are and will remain in discussions with the Americans. And it’s for the United States to lay out the juridical rationale for the action that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also talking with key partners looking at the juridical dimension of this.

But recently, in an interview on the BBC, Emily Thornberry (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 area of control.

Asked about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in violation of international law, she said, because the PM was in office, he had to balance “a number of considerations”. But she was in a different position because she was not a minister, she said. She went on:

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

[Starmer] may well wish to listen to what the reasoning is from the US administration. I can state before us and say I cannot think of anything that could be a proper justification.

Here is the agenda for the day.

10am: The Scottish first minister, gives a address in Glasgow. The Scottish Labour leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving speeches, at mid-morning and lunchtime respectively. All the leaders are gearing up to the Scottish parliament vote in May.

Morning: Keir Starmer is on a tour in Berkshire where he is scheduled to make comments to the press.

11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.

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

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