🔗 Share this article

Welcome back. Prior to the holidays, Keir Starmer had planned to use the first week back after the holiday recess to highlight ministers' actions to reduce the cost of living. He set out this argument yesterday in an article where he cited steps including proposals to reduce utility costs. Unfortunately, his cost of living media push has been blown out of the news agenda by the former US president, and his distinct approach to guaranteeing supporters receive cheap energy.

No one in British political life seems particularly eager on adopting the American method – which is probably a positive development for Norway.

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 expected to be more cooperative with American interests, particularly 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 considered what happened as lawful. Last night, European Union members apart from one nation issued a collective declaration which, while not explicitly condemning, did emphasise the value of international law, and by inference suggest Trump of ignoring it. It said:

EU members call for restraint and restraint by all parties, to avoid a worsening and to secure a peaceful solution to the crisis.

The Union recalls that, under any conditions, the principles of international law 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 pillar of the global security framework.

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

Not at all. UK ministers is, and will, be in discussions with the US administration. And it’s for the Americans to explain the legal basis for the steps that they’ve taken. And we’re also consulting with key partners looking at the juridical dimension of this.

But last night, in an interview on the BBC, Emily Thornberry (and a former shadow attorney general), said she was deeply worried 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 sphere of influence.

Questioned about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in breach of global rules, she said, because the PM was in government, he had to weigh up “multiple factors”. But she was in a separate situation because she was not a minister, she said. She went on:

In the end there is no getting away from it. This is not a legal action.

[Starmer] may well want to hear what the justification is from the US administration. I can get in front of us 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 speech in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving talks, at mid-morning and lunchtime respectively. All the party heads are gearing up to the Holyrood elections 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: Shabana Mahmood, takes questions in the Commons.

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