🔗 Share this article

Welcome back. Before Christmas, the Labour leader had planned to use the initial days back after the parliamentary break to highlight ministers' actions to bring down the living expenses. He outlined this case recently in an article where he cited measures including proposals to cut energy bills. However, Starmer’s cost of living PR blitz has been blown out of the headlines by Donald Trump, and his distinct approach to guaranteeing his voters receive cheap energy.

No one in British political life seems particularly eager on embracing the Trump approach – 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 Nicolás Maduro, and install a successor with someone anticipated to be more compliant with US demands, particularly in relation to the country’s oil industry.

The Prime Minister has declined to censure the American intervention, and the government has avoided questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as legal. Last night, all EU states except one nation issued a joint statement which, while not overtly critical, did emphasise the value of international law, and by inference accuse Trump of disregarding it. It said:

The European Union call for calm and restraint by all parties, to avoid escalation and to secure a peaceful resolution to the situation.

The EU recalls that, under any conditions, the principles of international law and the UN Charter must be respected. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to defend those standards, as a cornerstone of the global security framework.

Mike Tapp, was doing an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was declining to say the Venezuelan leader's removal violated global statutes because he was worried of antagonising Trump, Tapp replied:

Absolutely not. UK ministers are and will remain 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 talking with key partners examining the juridical dimension of this.

But recently, in an interview on the BBC, Emily Thornberry (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 sphere of influence.

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 separate situation because she was not a minister, she said. She went on:

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

[Starmer] may well wish to hear what the justification is from the US administration. I can state before us and say I cannot think of anything that could be a proper justification.

Here is the schedule for the day.

10am: The Scottish first minister, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Conservative 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: The Prime Minister is on a visit in Berkshire where he is due to make comments to the press.

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

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

After 3.30pm: Yvette Cooper, is expected to give a update to MPs about Venezuela.