Chris Mason: Starmer sticks to strategy of avoiding criticism of Trump over Maduro

In Labour's general election manifesto, on page 117 in case you wanted to check, the party promised to be "a defender of the international rule of law".

Not a wildly controversial line, nor a surprising one, given Labour's leader, Sir Keir Starmer, is a former international human rights lawyer.

And yet here we are, days after America seized the Venezuelan president and his wife from the country's capital Caracas, and the prime minister's language about whether that amounted to a breach of international law is circumspect.

In the immediate aftermath of Washington's extraordinary actions, Sir Keir's words could hardly have been more bland given the gravity of what we were witnessing.

In a social media post, he talked about "a transition of power" in Venezuela being something the UK had long supported.

But what about how it was brought about?

His answers, or lack of them, are the latest case study in No 10's handling strategy of a maverick US president: don't commentate, act in what they believe is a pragmatic, sober way and have discussions in private.

Notably, the prime minister hasn't spoken to President Trump since Nicolás Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores were, as Washington puts it, captured.

Strategically, the prime minister decided a year or so ago, once he knew Donald Trump was returning to the White House, that he would resist the temptation to offer a running public commentary on what was highly likely to be a – literally – remarkable presidential term.

To do so, he calculated, would risk ongoing public spats with not just the most powerful man on the planet, but someone with near zero compunction when it comes to spectacularly falling out with people.

Better, instead, Sir Keir concluded, to be cautious and revere the upsides of a decent relationship with the White House, something the prime minister is proud to have secured.

His supporters point to, for instance, the deal the government secured with Washington to limit the impact of tariffs imposed by the White House last year – a deal, ministers believe, was the difference between thousands of jobs being retained by Jaguar Land Rover in the UK and them going.

Sounding off about President Trump, his allies say, might be tempting but would not only be "juvenile" as one put it, but not be in the UK's best interests.

The government's equivocation has been pounced on by its critics, within the Labour Party and beyond.

Its rivals on the Left, the Liberal Democrats, the Scottish National Party and the Green Party of England and Wales have been quick to condemn the prime minister's lack of willingness to condemn President Trump.

Some Labour backbenchers share that concern – and took issue with the phrase from Sir Keir that came closest to criticising Washington, when he told me and others "it is for the US to justify the actions it has taken".

This, said his critics, amounted to granting President Trump permission to mark his own homework.

Strikingly, the Conservative leadership and some of its backbenchers were broadly supportive of the government's position, arguing that publicly criticising the White House was not likely to be in the UK's interests.

Among Labour MPs, while there is unease, some now public, some private, there doesn't appear at this stage to be an overwhelming cacophony of noisy opposition to Downing Street's position.

"I feel sure that the response needs to be much stronger and the parliamentary Labour Party will be saying so. It's been a bit half-hearted at the moment," said one MP.

Another Labour MP said even among private WhatsApp groups, the criticism is aimed at President Trump, not the prime minister's response.

"I suspect it's because we recognise that Trump is a massive loose cannon and Starmer is having to go very canny right now," one MP said.