🔗 Share this article

Welcome back. Before Christmas, the Labour leader had intended to use the first week back after the parliamentary break to focus on government efforts to reduce the cost of living. He set out this case yesterday in an article where he referenced steps including plans to reduce energy bills. Unfortunately, Starmer’s cost of living media push has been blown out of the news agenda by the former US president, and his entirely different approach to ensuring his voters get access to affordable power.

No one in British political life seems very keen on adopting 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 the Venezuelan president, and install a successor with someone expected to be more compliant with American interests, especially in regarding the country’s oil industry.

Keir Starmer has declined to censure the US action, and the administration has dodged questions about whether or not it considered what happened as lawful. Last night, all EU states except Hungary issued a joint statement which, while not explicitly condemning, did stress the importance of international law, and by implication suggest Trump of disregarding it. It said:

EU members call for restraint and restraint by all actors, to prevent escalation and to secure a peaceful resolution to the situation.

The Union reiterates that, under any conditions, the principles of international law and the UN Charter must be upheld. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to defend those principles, as a cornerstone of the international security architecture.

The migration minister, was conducting an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was refusing to say the Venezuelan leader's removal violated international law because he was worried of upsetting Trump, the minister responded:

Absolutely not. The British government is, and will, be in conversations with the Americans. And it’s for the United States to explain the legal basis for the action that they’ve taken. And we’re also consulting with key partners examining the juridical dimension of this.

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

Questioned about Starmer refusing to say that Trump was in violation of global rules, 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 added:

Ultimately there is no getting away from it. This is an unlawful move.

The Prime Minister may well want to listen to 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 agenda for the day.

10am: John Swinney, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving speeches, at mid-morning and lunchtime in turn. All the party heads are gearing up to the Holyrood elections in May.

Morning: The Prime Minister is on a visit in Berkshire where he is due to speak to the press.

11.30am: The Prime Minister's office holds a press briefing.

2.30pm: The home secretary, takes questions in the Commons.

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