🔗 Share this article

Welcome back. Prior to the holidays, the Labour leader had intended to use the first week back after the holiday recess to focus on ministers' efforts to reduce the living expenses. He set out this case recently in an article where he referenced measures including plans to cut energy bills. Unfortunately, Starmer’s economic media push has been blown out of the headlines by the former US president, and his entirely different strategy to guaranteeing supporters get access to affordable power.

Not a single figure in British political life appears particularly eager on adopting the American method – which is probably a positive development for other nations.

But there is a heated discussion ongoing about what the UK government should be prepared to say about Trump’s decision to abduct the Venezuelan president, and install a successor with someone anticipated to be more compliant with American interests, particularly in relation to the nation's petroleum sector.

Keir Starmer has declined to criticise the American intervention, and the administration has avoided questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as lawful. Recently, all EU states apart from Hungary issued a collective declaration which, while not overtly critical, did stress the importance of international law, and by inference accuse Trump of disregarding it. It said:

The European Union urge restraint and caution by all actors, to prevent a worsening and to secure a peaceful solution to the situation.

The Union reiterates 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 particular responsibility to uphold those standards, as a pillar of the global security framework.

Mike Tapp, was conducting an series of media appearances this morning and, when asked if Starmer was declining to say the Venezuelan leader's removal violated international law because he was afraid of antagonising Trump, Tapp responded:

Absolutely not. The British government are and will remain in discussions with the Americans. And it’s for the United States to explain the legal basis for the steps that they’ve taken. 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.

Questioned about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in violation of global rules, she said, because the PM was in office, he had to weigh up “multiple factors”. But she was in a separate situation because she was not a government member, she said. She went on:

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

[Starmer] may well want to hear what the reasoning is from the American government. I can get in front of us and say I literally think of anything that could be a valid excuse.

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 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 tour in Berkshire where he is scheduled to make comments to the press.

11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.

2.30pm: The home secretary, takes queries in the Commons.

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