🔗 Share this article

Welcome back. Prior to the holidays, Keir Starmer had planned to use the initial days back after the parliamentary break to focus on ministers' actions to bring down the cost of living. He outlined this argument yesterday in an article where he cited measures including plans to cut energy bills. However, his economic media push has been overshadowed of the headlines by the former US president, and his entirely different approach to ensuring supporters receive affordable power.

No one in British political life appears very keen on embracing the Trump approach – which is likely a positive development 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 expected to be more compliant with US demands, especially in regarding the nation's petroleum sector.

Keir Starmer has declined to criticise the US action, and the government has avoided questions about whether or not it considered what happened as legal. Recently, European Union members except one nation issued a collective declaration which, while not explicitly condemning, did emphasise the value of international law, and by implication suggest Trump of disregarding it. It said:

EU members call for calm and restraint by all parties, to prevent escalation and to ensure a peaceful solution to the crisis.

The EU reiterates that, under all circumstances, the tenets of international law and the United Nations charter must be respected. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to uphold 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 afraid of upsetting Trump, the minister responded:

Not at all. UK ministers is, and will, be in discussions with the US administration. And it’s for the United States to lay out the juridical rationale for the steps that they’ve taken. And we’re also talking with key partners looking at the juridical dimension of this.

But last night, in an interview on the BBC, Emily Thornberry (and a former shadow attorney general), said she was deeply worried about the way Trump seems to think, like the Russian leader and the Chinese president, that he could do what he wanted in his area of control.

Questioned about Starmer refusing to say that Trump was in violation of international law, Thornberry said, because the PM was in government, he had to weigh up “multiple factors”. But she was in a different position because she was not a government member, she said. She added:

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

[Starmer] may well want to hear what the justification is from the American government. I can state before us and say I cannot think of anything that could be a proper justification.

Here is the schedule for the day.

10am: John Swinney, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving talks, at 10.30am and lunchtime in turn. All the leaders are gearing up to the Scottish parliament vote in May.

Morning: Keir Starmer is on a tour in Berkshire where he is due to speak 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 expected to give a statement to MPs about Venezuela.