🔗 Share this article

Welcome back. Before Christmas, Keir Starmer had planned to use the first week back after the holiday recess to highlight ministers' actions to bring down the cost of living. He set out this argument yesterday in a piece where he cited measures including proposals to reduce utility costs. However, his economic media push has been blown out of the news agenda by Donald Trump, and his entirely different approach to ensuring supporters get access to affordable power.

Not a single figure in mainstream UK politics seems particularly eager on adopting the American method – which is probably good news for Norway.

But there is an intense debate ongoing 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 cooperative with US demands, particularly in relation to the nation's petroleum sector.

The Prime Minister has refused to censure the US action, and the administration has avoided questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as legal. Last night, all EU states apart from Hungary issued a collective declaration which, while not overtly critical, did stress the value of global rules, and by inference accuse Trump of disregarding it. It said:

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

The EU recalls that, under all circumstances, the principles of the rules-based order and the United Nations charter must be respected. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to defend those principles, as a cornerstone of the global security framework.

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 antagonising Trump, the minister replied:

Not at all. UK ministers is, and will, be in discussions with the US administration. And it’s for the United States to explain the juridical rationale for the action that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also talking with close allies examining the legal aspect of this.

But recently, in an interview on the BBC, the chair of the Commons foreign affairs committee (and a ex- 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.

Questioned about Starmer refusing to say that Trump was in breach of global rules, Thornberry 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 government member, she said. She went on:

In the end there is no getting away from it. This is an unlawful move.

The Prime Minister may well wish to listen to what the justification is from the American government. I can state before us and say I literally think of anything that could be a proper justification.

Here is the schedule for the day.

10am: The Scottish first minister, gives a address in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving talks, at mid-morning and 1pm respectively. All the party heads are gearing up to the Scottish parliament vote in May.

Morning: The Prime Minister is on a tour in Berkshire where he is scheduled to make comments to the press.

11.30am: Downing Street 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 statement to MPs about Venezuela.