🔗 Share this article

Welcome back. Prior to the holidays, the Labour leader had planned to use the first week back after the parliamentary break to highlight government actions to reduce the living expenses. He set out this argument recently in a piece where he cited steps including plans to reduce utility costs. Unfortunately, Starmer’s cost of living media push has been overshadowed of the headlines by Donald Trump, and his distinct strategy to ensuring his voters receive cheap energy.

No one in mainstream UK politics seems very keen on embracing the American method – which is probably good news for other nations.

But there is an intense debate under way about what the UK government should be prepared to say about the American action to abduct Nicolás Maduro, and replace him with someone anticipated to be more compliant with US demands, particularly in regarding the nation's petroleum sector.

The Prime Minister has refused to censure the US action, and the administration has dodged questions about whether or not it considered what happened as legal. Recently, all EU states except one nation issued a collective declaration which, while not overtly critical, did stress the importance of international law, and by inference suggest Trump of ignoring it. It said:

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

The Union recalls that, under all circumstances, the tenets of the rules-based order and the United Nations charter must be upheld. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to defend those principles, as a cornerstone of the international security architecture.

Mike Tapp, was doing an series of media appearances this morning and, when asked if Starmer was refusing to say the Maduro extradition broke international law because he was worried of antagonising Trump, Tapp replied:

Absolutely not. The British government are and will remain in discussions with the US administration. 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 close allies examining the legal aspect of this.

But recently, in an interview on the BBC, the chair of the Commons foreign affairs committee (and a ex- shadow attorney general), said she was very concerned 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 area of control.

Asked about Starmer refusing to say that Trump was in breach of international law, she 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 government member, she said. She went on:

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

[Starmer] may well want to listen to what the justification is from the US administration. I can state before everyone 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 speech in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving talks, at mid-morning and lunchtime in turn. All the leaders are looking ahead to the Holyrood elections in May.

Morning: The Prime Minister 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: The home secretary, takes queries in the Commons.

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