🔗 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' actions to reduce the living expenses. He outlined this case recently in an article where he referenced measures including plans to reduce utility costs. However, his economic PR blitz has been overshadowed of the headlines by the former US president, and his distinct strategy to guaranteeing his voters get access to affordable power.

No one in British political life appears very keen on adopting the American method – which is likely good news for Norway.

But there is a heated discussion ongoing about what the UK government should be willing to say about the American action to abduct the Venezuelan president, and install a successor with someone anticipated to be more compliant with American interests, particularly in relation to the country’s oil industry.

Keir Starmer has declined to criticise the US action, and the government has avoided questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as lawful. Last night, European Union members apart from one nation issued a joint statement which, while not overtly critical, did stress the value of global rules, and by inference accuse Trump of disregarding it. It said:

The European Union call for restraint and restraint by all actors, to avoid a worsening and to secure a peaceful resolution to the situation.

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

Mike Tapp, was conducting an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was declining to say the Maduro extradition broke international law because he was worried of upsetting Trump, the minister 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 juridical rationale for the action that they’ve taken. And we’re also talking with close allies examining the juridical dimension of this.

But last night, in an interview on the BBC, Emily Thornberry (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 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:

Ultimately there is no getting away from it. This is not a legal action.

The Prime Minister may well wish to hear what the reasoning is from the American government. I can state before everyone 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 address in Glasgow. The Scottish Labour leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving talks, at mid-morning and 1pm in turn. All the party heads are looking ahead to the Scottish parliament vote in May.

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

11.30am: Downing Street holds a press briefing.

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

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