🔗 Share this article

Welcome back. Before Christmas, the Labour leader had intended to use the first week back after the parliamentary break to focus on ministers' actions to bring down the living expenses. He set out this argument recently in an article where he cited steps including plans to cut utility costs. Unfortunately, his economic PR blitz has been overshadowed of the headlines by the former US president, and his entirely different strategy to ensuring his voters get access to affordable power.

Not a single figure in mainstream UK politics seems particularly eager on embracing the Trump approach – which is probably a positive development for Norway.

But there is a heated discussion ongoing about what the UK government should be prepared to say about the American action to abduct the Venezuelan president, and replace him with someone expected to be more cooperative with American interests, especially in regarding 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. Last night, European Union members except Hungary issued a collective declaration which, while not explicitly condemning, did stress the importance of international law, and by implication suggest Trump of ignoring it. It said:

EU members call for calm and caution by all parties, to prevent a worsening and to secure a peaceful resolution to the crisis.

The EU recalls that, under all circumstances, the principles of the rules-based order and the UN Charter must be upheld. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to uphold those principles, as a pillar 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 upsetting 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 legal basis for the steps that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also talking with close allies looking at the legal aspect of this.

But recently, in an interview on the BBC, the chair of the Commons foreign affairs committee (and a former shadow attorney general), said she was deeply worried 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.

Questioned about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in violation of international law, Thornberry 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 government member, she said. She went on:

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

The Prime Minister may well wish to listen to what the reasoning is from the American government. I can get in front of everyone and say I literally think of anything that could be a valid excuse.

Here is the schedule 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 10.30am and lunchtime respectively. All the party heads are gearing up to the Scottish parliament vote in May.

Morning: The Prime Minister is on a visit in Berkshire where he is scheduled to make comments to the media.

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

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

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