🔗 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 ministers' efforts to reduce the cost of living. He outlined this case yesterday in a piece where he cited steps including plans to cut energy bills. However, Starmer’s cost of living PR blitz has been blown out of the news agenda by the former US president, and his entirely different strategy to guaranteeing supporters receive affordable power.

No one in British political life appears particularly eager on embracing the American method – which is probably 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 abduct the Venezuelan president, and install a successor with someone expected to be more cooperative with US demands, especially in regarding the country’s oil industry.

The Prime Minister has declined to criticise the US action, and the government has avoided questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as lawful. Recently, European Union members apart from one nation issued a collective declaration which, while not explicitly condemning, did stress the value of international law, and by implication suggest Trump of disregarding it. It said:

The European Union urge restraint and restraint by all parties, to prevent escalation and to ensure a peaceful solution to the crisis.

The Union recalls that, under any conditions, the tenets of the rules-based order and the United Nations charter must be upheld. 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 declining to say the Maduro extradition violated global statutes because he was worried of upsetting Trump, the minister responded:

Not at all. The British government is, and will, be in discussions with the Americans. And it’s for the United States to lay out the juridical rationale for the action that they’ve taken. And we’re also consulting with key partners examining the legal aspect 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 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.

Asked about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in violation of international law, she said, because the PM was in government, he had to balance “multiple factors”. But she was in a different position because she was not a minister, she said. She added:

In the end there is no getting away from it. This is not a legal action.

The Prime Minister may well wish to hear what the justification is from the American government. I can state before everyone and say I literally 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 opposition leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving speeches, at mid-morning and lunchtime in turn. All the party heads are looking ahead to the Scottish parliament vote in May.

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

11.30am: Downing Street holds a press 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 Venezuela.