🔗 Share this article

Welcome back. Before Christmas, the Labour leader had planned to use the first week back after the parliamentary break to focus on ministers' efforts to reduce the cost of living. He outlined this argument yesterday in a piece where he cited measures including plans to cut utility costs. However, Starmer’s cost of living PR blitz has been blown out of the news agenda by Donald Trump, and his entirely different strategy to guaranteeing supporters receive cheap energy.

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

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

The Prime Minister has refused to censure the US action, and the administration has avoided questions about whether or not it considered what happened as lawful. Recently, all EU states apart from one nation issued a joint statement which, while not overtly critical, did stress the value of international law, and by implication suggest Trump of ignoring it. It said:

The European Union urge calm and caution by all parties, to avoid a worsening and to ensure a peaceful solution to the situation.

The EU reiterates that, under any conditions, the principles of the rules-based order and the United Nations charter must be upheld. 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 refusing to say the Venezuelan leader's removal broke global statutes because he was worried of antagonising Trump, the minister responded:

Absolutely not. UK ministers are and will remain in conversations with the US administration. And it’s for the Americans to explain the legal basis for the action that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also consulting with close allies looking at the legal aspect of this.

But recently, 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 the Russian leader and the Chinese president, that he could do what he wanted in his sphere of influence.

Asked about Starmer refusing to say that Trump was in breach of international law, Thornberry said, because the PM was in office, he had to weigh up “a number of considerations”. But she was in a separate situation because she was not a minister, she said. She went on:

Ultimately there is no escaping the fact. This is an unlawful move.

[Starmer] may well want to hear what the reasoning is from the US administration. I can get in front of us and say I cannot think of anything that could be a proper justification.

Here is the agenda for the day.

10am: The Scottish first minister, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving speeches, at mid-morning and 1pm in turn. All the leaders are looking ahead to the Scottish parliament vote in May.

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