🔗 Share this article

Welcome back. Prior to the holidays, Keir Starmer had intended to use the initial days back after the parliamentary break to highlight government actions to bring down the living expenses. He set out this argument yesterday in a piece where he referenced steps including proposals to cut utility costs. Unfortunately, his cost of living media push has been blown out of the headlines by Donald Trump, and his entirely different approach to guaranteeing supporters get access to affordable power.

Not a single figure in mainstream UK politics appears very keen on adopting the Trump approach – which is probably a positive development for Norway.

But there is a heated discussion under way 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 compliant with American interests, especially in relation to the nation's petroleum sector.

Keir Starmer has refused to criticise the US action, and the administration has dodged questions about whether or not it considered what happened as lawful. Last night, European Union members except Hungary issued a collective declaration which, while not overtly critical, did emphasise the importance of global rules, and by implication suggest Trump of ignoring it. It said:

The European Union call for calm and caution by all parties, to prevent escalation and to ensure a peaceful solution to the situation.

The EU recalls that, under any conditions, the tenets of the rules-based order and the UN Charter must be respected. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to uphold those principles, as a cornerstone of the international security architecture.

The migration minister, was conducting an series of media appearances this morning and, when asked if Starmer was declining to say the Venezuelan leader's removal broke international law because he was afraid of upsetting Trump, Tapp replied:

Not at all. UK ministers are and will remain in discussions with the Americans. And it’s for the Americans to explain the juridical rationale for the action that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also consulting with key partners examining the legal aspect of this.

But recently, in an interview on the BBC, Emily Thornberry (and a former shadow attorney general), said she was very concerned about the way Trump seems to think, like Russia’s Vladimir Putin and China’s Xi Jinping, that he could do what he wanted in his sphere of influence.

Asked about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in violation of international law, she said, because the PM was in office, he had to balance “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 getting away from it. This is an unlawful move.

The Prime Minister may well wish to listen to what the reasoning is from the US administration. I can get in front of everyone and say I literally 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 Labour leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving speeches, at 10.30am and 1pm in turn. All the leaders are gearing up to the Holyrood elections in May.

Morning: The Prime Minister is on a visit in Berkshire where he is due 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: Yvette Cooper, is expected to give a update to MPs about Venezuela.