🔗 Share this article

Good morning. Before Christmas, the Labour leader had intended to use the initial days back after the holiday recess to focus on government efforts to reduce the cost of living. He outlined this argument recently in a piece where he cited steps including plans to reduce utility costs. Unfortunately, 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 guaranteeing his voters get access to cheap energy.

Not a single figure in mainstream UK politics appears very keen on embracing the Trump approach – which is likely good news for Norway.

But there is a heated discussion ongoing about what the UK government should be willing to say about Trump’s decision to abduct the Venezuelan president, and install a successor with someone anticipated to be more compliant with US demands, particularly in relation to the nation's petroleum sector.

Keir Starmer has declined 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 apart from one nation issued a joint statement which, while not explicitly condemning, did stress the importance of international law, and by inference accuse Trump of disregarding it. It said:

The European Union urge restraint and restraint by all parties, to avoid escalation and to ensure a peaceful solution to the situation.

The EU reiterates that, under all circumstances, the principles of international law and the United Nations charter must be respected. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to defend those principles, as a cornerstone of the global security framework.

Mike Tapp, was conducting an series of media appearances this morning and, when asked if Starmer was declining to say the Venezuelan leader's removal broke global statutes because he was afraid of upsetting Trump, Tapp responded:

Absolutely not. The British government 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 talking with close allies looking at the legal aspect of this.

But last night, in an appearance on the BBC, the chair of the Commons foreign affairs committee (and a ex- shadow attorney general), said she was deeply worried 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 area of control.

Questioned about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in breach of international law, she said, because the PM was in government, he had to balance “a number of considerations”. But she was in a different position because she was not a government member, she said. She went on:

In the end there is no escaping the fact. This is an unlawful move.

The Prime Minister may well want to hear what the reasoning is from the US administration. I can get in front of us and say I literally think of anything that could be a valid excuse.

Here is the agenda for the day.

10am: John Swinney, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish Labour leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving talks, at mid-morning and lunchtime 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 scheduled to speak to the media.

11.30am: Downing Street holds a press briefing.

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

After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is anticipated to give a update to MPs about Venezuela.