🔗 Share this article

Good morning. Prior to the holidays, Keir Starmer had intended to use the first week back after the holiday recess to focus on ministers' efforts to bring down the living expenses. He set out this argument recently in an article where he referenced steps including proposals to reduce utility costs. However, Starmer’s economic PR blitz has been overshadowed of the news agenda by Donald Trump, and his distinct strategy to guaranteeing supporters receive cheap energy.

Not a single figure in British political life appears very keen on embracing the American method – which is probably a positive development for other nations.

But there is an intense debate ongoing about what the UK government should be willing to say about Trump’s decision to abduct Nicolás Maduro, and install a successor with someone anticipated to be more cooperative with US demands, especially in regarding the country’s oil industry.

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

The European Union call for restraint and restraint by all parties, to avoid a worsening and to ensure a peaceful resolution to the crisis.

The EU recalls that, under any conditions, 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 pillar of the international security architecture.

Mike Tapp, was conducting an series of media appearances this morning and, when asked if Starmer was declining to say the Venezuelan leader's removal violated international law because he was afraid of upsetting Trump, Tapp responded:

Absolutely not. The British government is, and will, be in discussions with the Americans. And it’s for the United States to lay out the legal basis for the steps 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, Emily Thornberry (and a former shadow attorney general), said she was very concerned 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 declining to say that Trump was in violation of global rules, Thornberry said, because the PM was in government, he had to balance “a number of considerations”. But she was in a different position because she was not a minister, 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 want to hear what the reasoning 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 schedule for the day.

10am: John Swinney, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving talks, at 10.30am and 1pm respectively. All the party heads are gearing up to the Holyrood elections in May.

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

11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.

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

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