🔗 Share this article

Welcome back. Before Christmas, Keir Starmer had planned to use the initial days back after the holiday recess to focus on government actions to reduce the cost of living. He set out this argument recently in an article where he cited measures including proposals to cut utility costs. Unfortunately, Starmer’s economic PR blitz has been blown out of the headlines by Donald Trump, and his distinct strategy to guaranteeing his voters receive cheap energy.

Not a single figure in British political life seems very keen on embracing the Trump approach – which is probably a positive development for Norway.

But there is an intense debate ongoing about what the UK government should be willing to say about the American action to extradite the Venezuelan president, and install a successor with someone anticipated to be more cooperative with US demands, particularly in regarding the nation's petroleum sector.

Keir Starmer has declined to criticise the American intervention, and the administration has avoided questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as lawful. Recently, all EU states apart from one nation issued a collective declaration which, while not overtly critical, did stress the value of global rules, and by inference accuse Trump of ignoring it. It said:

EU members urge calm and restraint by all actors, to prevent escalation and to secure a peaceful resolution 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. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a particular responsibility to uphold those standards, as a pillar of the international security architecture.

The migration minister, was conducting an series of media appearances this morning and, when asked if Starmer was refusing to say the Venezuelan leader's removal violated international law because he was afraid of antagonising Trump, the minister replied:

Absolutely not. The British government are and will remain in conversations with the Americans. And it’s for the United States to lay out the juridical rationale for the action that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also consulting with close allies examining the legal aspect of this.

But last night, 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 violation of global rules, she 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 went on:

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

The Prime Minister may well want 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 agenda for the day.

10am: The Scottish first minister, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving talks, at mid-morning and 1pm in turn. 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 scheduled to make comments to the media.

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

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

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