🔗 Share this article

Welcome back. Before Christmas, Keir Starmer had planned to use the initial days back after the holiday recess to highlight government actions to bring down the living expenses. He set out this case yesterday in an article where he referenced measures including proposals to reduce energy bills. However, Starmer’s cost of living PR blitz has been overshadowed of the news agenda by the former US president, and his entirely different strategy to ensuring supporters get access to affordable power.

Not a single figure in mainstream UK politics appears particularly eager on adopting the Trump approach – which is probably a positive development for other nations.

But there is an intense debate under way about what the UK government should be willing to say about the American action to abduct the Venezuelan president, and replace him with someone anticipated to be more cooperative with American interests, particularly in regarding the nation's petroleum sector.

The Prime Minister has refused to censure the American intervention, and the administration has avoided questions about whether or not it considered what happened as lawful. Recently, all EU states except Hungary issued a joint statement which, while not overtly critical, did stress the importance of global rules, and by inference accuse Trump of disregarding it. It said:

EU members urge restraint and caution by all actors, to avoid a worsening and to ensure a peaceful resolution to the situation.

The Union recalls that, under all circumstances, the tenets of international law and the United Nations charter must be respected. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to defend those standards, as a pillar of the international security architecture.

Mike Tapp, was doing an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was refusing to say the Venezuelan leader's removal violated international law because he was worried of antagonising Trump, the minister responded:

Not at all. UK ministers is, and will, be in conversations with the Americans. And it’s for the Americans to lay out the legal basis for the action that they’ve taken. And we’re also consulting with key partners looking at the legal aspect of this.

But last night, in an appearance on the BBC, Emily Thornberry (and a former shadow attorney general), said she was very concerned 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 breach of international law, Thornberry said, because the PM was in government, he had to weigh up “a number of considerations”. But she was in a separate situation because she was not a government member, she said. She went on:

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

[Starmer] may well want to listen to what the reasoning is from the American government. I can state before everyone 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 address in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving talks, at 10.30am and lunchtime in turn. All the party heads are gearing up to the Holyrood elections 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 lobby 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.