🔗 Share this article

Good morning. Before Christmas, the Labour leader had intended to use the initial days back after the holiday recess to focus on ministers' efforts to reduce the living expenses. He outlined this case yesterday in a piece where he referenced steps including proposals to cut utility costs. However, his economic media push has been overshadowed of the headlines by the former US president, and his distinct approach to ensuring his voters receive cheap energy.

Not a single figure in British political life appears very keen on adopting the Trump approach – which is likely good news for Norway.

But there is a heated discussion ongoing about what the UK government should be prepared to say about the American action to abduct the Venezuelan president, and install a successor with someone anticipated to be more compliant with US demands, especially in regarding the country’s oil industry.

Keir Starmer has refused to criticise the American intervention, and the administration has dodged questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as lawful. Last night, European Union members apart from Hungary issued a joint statement which, while not explicitly condemning, did emphasise the importance of global rules, and by implication accuse Trump of ignoring it. It said:

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

The Union recalls that, under all circumstances, the principles of international law and the United Nations charter must be respected. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to defend those principles, as a cornerstone of the international security architecture.

The migration minister, was doing an series of media appearances this morning and, when asked if Starmer was declining to say the Venezuelan leader's removal broke international law because he was worried of upsetting Trump, the minister responded:

Absolutely not. UK ministers is, and will, be in conversations with the Americans. And it’s for the United States to explain the juridical rationale for the action that they’ve taken. And we’re also consulting with key partners examining the legal aspect 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.

Asked about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in breach of international law, she said, because the PM was in office, he had to weigh up “a number of considerations”. But she was in a separate situation because she was not a government member, she said. She went on:

Ultimately there is no getting away from it. This is an unlawful move.

The Prime Minister 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 proper justification.

Here is the agenda for the day.

10am: John Swinney, gives a speech in Glasgow. The Scottish Labour leader, and Scottish Tory leader, are also giving talks, at 10.30am and 1pm respectively. All the leaders are looking ahead to the Holyrood elections in May.

Morning: Keir Starmer is on a visit in Berkshire where he is due to make comments to the media.

11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.

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

After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is expected to give a statement to MPs about Venezuela.