🔗 Share this article

Welcome back. Prior to the holidays, Keir Starmer had planned to use the initial days back after the parliamentary break to focus on government actions to reduce the cost of living. He set out this case recently in a piece where he cited measures including proposals to cut utility costs. However, Starmer’s cost of living PR blitz has been blown out of the news agenda by Donald Trump, and his distinct strategy to ensuring his voters receive affordable power.

No one in mainstream UK politics seems particularly eager on adopting the Trump approach – which is probably good news for other nations.

But there is a heated discussion ongoing about what the UK government should be prepared to say about Trump’s decision to abduct the Venezuelan president, and replace him with someone anticipated to be more compliant with US demands, especially in relation to the country’s oil industry.

The Prime Minister has refused to censure the US action, and the administration has dodged questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as lawful. Recently, European Union members except 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:

The European Union urge calm and caution by all parties, to avoid a worsening and to ensure a peaceful solution to the situation.

The EU reiterates that, under any conditions, the principles of international law and the UN Charter must be respected. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility 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 refusing to say the Venezuelan leader's removal broke global statutes because he was worried of upsetting Trump, Tapp replied:

Not at all. UK ministers are and will remain in discussions with the US administration. And it’s for the Americans to explain the legal basis for the action that they’ve taken. And we’re also talking with close allies looking at the juridical dimension of this.

But recently, 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 area of control.

Asked about Starmer refusing to say that Trump was in breach of global rules, Thornberry said, because the PM was in office, he had to balance “multiple factors”. But she was in a separate situation because she was not a government member, she said. She added:

Ultimately there is no getting away from it. This is not a legal action.

[Starmer] may well wish to listen to what the reasoning is from the American government. I can get in front of us and say I literally think of anything that could be a valid excuse.

Here is the agenda 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 10.30am and lunchtime respectively. 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 scheduled to speak to the press.

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

2.30pm: Shabana Mahmood, takes questions in the Commons.

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