🔗 Share this article

Welcome back. Before Christmas, the Labour leader had intended to use the first week back after the parliamentary break to highlight government efforts to reduce the living expenses. He set out this argument yesterday in an article where he referenced measures including proposals to reduce energy bills. Unfortunately, his cost of living PR blitz has been overshadowed of the news agenda by the former US president, and his entirely different approach to ensuring his voters get access to cheap energy.

No one in mainstream UK politics seems very keen on embracing the Trump approach – which is probably a positive development for Norway.

But there is a heated discussion under way about what the UK government should be willing to say about the American action to abduct Nicolás Maduro, and replace him with someone expected to be more cooperative with American interests, particularly in relation to the country’s oil industry.

Keir Starmer has refused to censure the American intervention, 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 importance of international law, and by inference accuse Trump of ignoring it. It said:

EU members urge calm and caution by all actors, to avoid escalation and to ensure a peaceful resolution to the situation.

The Union recalls that, under any conditions, the tenets of international law and the United Nations charter must be respected. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to defend those principles, as a pillar of the global security framework.

Mike Tapp, was doing an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was declining to say the Venezuelan leader's removal violated global statutes because he was worried of antagonising Trump, Tapp replied:

Absolutely not. 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 steps that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also consulting with close allies looking at the juridical dimension of this.

But recently, 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 Russia’s Vladimir Putin 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, Thornberry said, because the PM was in government, he had to balance “a number of considerations”. But she was in a separate situation because she was not a minister, she said. She went on:

In the end there is no getting away from it. This is an unlawful move.

[Starmer] may well wish to listen to what the justification 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 schedule for the day.

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

Morning: The Prime Minister is on a tour in Berkshire where he is due to speak to the press.

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

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

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