🔗 Share this article

Welcome back. Before Christmas, Keir Starmer had planned to use the first week back after the holiday recess to focus on government efforts to reduce the cost of living. He set out this argument yesterday in a piece where he cited measures including plans to reduce utility costs. However, Starmer’s cost of living PR blitz has been blown out of the news agenda by the former US president, and his entirely different approach to guaranteeing his voters receive affordable power.

Not a single figure in British political life appears particularly eager on adopting the Trump approach – which is probably good news for other nations.

But there is a heated discussion under way about what the UK government should be willing to say about Trump’s decision to abduct the Venezuelan president, and replace him with someone expected to be more compliant with US demands, especially in relation to the nation's petroleum sector.

The Prime Minister has declined to criticise the US action, and the administration has avoided questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as legal. 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 ignoring it. It said:

The European Union urge calm and restraint by all actors, to avoid a worsening and to ensure a peaceful resolution to the crisis.

The Union reiterates that, under any conditions, the principles of the rules-based order and the United Nations charter must be respected. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to defend those principles, as a cornerstone 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 global statutes because he was afraid 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 United States to explain the juridical rationale for the steps that they’ve taken. And we’re also talking with key partners looking at 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 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 government member, she said. She added:

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

The Prime Minister may well want to hear what the justification is from the American government. I can state before everyone and say I cannot think of anything that could be a valid excuse.

Here is the schedule for the day.

10am: John Swinney, gives a address in Glasgow. The Scottish Labour leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving speeches, at mid-morning and lunchtime respectively. All the party heads are looking ahead 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: The Prime Minister's office holds a lobby briefing.

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

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