🔗 Share this article

Welcome back. Before Christmas, the Labour leader had intended to use the first week back after the holiday recess to focus on government actions to bring down the cost of living. He outlined this case recently in an article where he cited measures including proposals to reduce utility costs. Unfortunately, his economic PR blitz has been overshadowed of the news agenda by the former US president, and his entirely different approach to guaranteeing his voters receive affordable power.

Not a single figure in British political life seems very keen on adopting the Trump approach – which is likely a positive development for other nations.

But there is a heated discussion 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 anticipated to be more compliant with American interests, especially in regarding the country’s oil industry.

The Prime Minister has refused to criticise the American intervention, and the government has dodged 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 emphasise the importance of international law, and by inference accuse Trump of ignoring it. It said:

EU members call for restraint and restraint by all parties, to prevent escalation and to ensure a peaceful solution to the situation.

The EU recalls that, under all circumstances, the tenets of the rules-based order and the United Nations charter must be respected. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to uphold those standards, as a cornerstone of the international security architecture.

The migration minister, was conducting an interview round 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, Tapp responded:

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

But last night, 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 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 balance “a number of considerations”. But she was in a separate situation because she was not a minister, she said. She added:

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

[Starmer] 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: The Scottish first minister, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish Labour 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 tour in Berkshire where he is due to make comments to the media.

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

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

After 3.30pm: Yvette Cooper, is anticipated to give a update to MPs about the ongoing situation.