Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer Avoids Commons Debate on Venezuela While MPs Criticize His Absence in London

Yesterday, the House of Commons finally got around to talking about Venezuela.

The chamber was reasonably busy—Kemi Badenoch was there, so was the Lib Dems’ rather rotund Sir Ed Davey.

Even the two leaders from the far left, Comrades Corbyn and Sultana, were present, sitting close enough to radiate tension like old rivals squaring off.

But one key figure was missing: Sir Keir Starmer.

The Prime Minister apparently spent the morning meeting “influencers” and decided that spending the evening with MPs was optional. His absence didn’t go unnoticed.

Where Was the Prime Minister?

The empty seat at the despatch box felt conspicuous.

Was Sir Keir enjoying a quiet tea at home? Waiting for a call from Donald Trump with the line, “You’re 45th in the queue, thanks for waiting”? Or simply under the eiderdown, hoping the Venezuela crisis would sort itself out? MPs across the chamber found it absurd.

Kemi Badenoch insisted that the public deserved to know the PM’s plans.

Pete Wishart of the SNP didn’t hold back, describing him as “irrelevant and spineless.”

Richard Burgon from Labour called it a “cowardly, craven approach.”

Even if Burgon tends to admire communist leaders, his words cut deep.

A Labour Party Unimpressed

Yet, most Labour MPs barely flinched.

Young backbenchers like Phil Brickell and Nick Smith rolled their eyes, unfazed by the dramatic accusations.

The fact that a Prime Minister could be so openly criticized by his own side was remarkable—perhaps a first in recent memory.

At this rate, some joked, Cuban bodyguards might be advisable.

Yvette Cooper Steps In

With Starmer absent, Yvette Cooper, the Foreign Secretary, took the stage.

She began with a brief nod to the victims of the Crans-Montana fire, then switched to Venezuela as if it were a minor afterthought.

Cooper described Venezuela as a “hub for dangerous, organised gangs” and emphasized the need for Britain to be “progressive but realistic.”

Her tone was brisk, almost breezy, as if serious crises were just background noise.

Calls for Action

Kemi Badenoch, meanwhile, raised her concerns about working effectively with the U.S. rather than “sniping from the sidelines.”

Cooper’s attempts to brush off these criticisms failed, and even when Tom Tugendhat made a sharp remark about the PM, she could only giggle nervously.

Her posture at the despatch box—ankles crossed, corkscrewing—projected a mixture of calm and confusion.

To onlookers, the performance felt like trying to shape clay that was too wet: all effort, no form.

After half an hour, Sir John Whittingdale admitted he couldn’t figure out whether the Government was for or against the Americans—a reflection, perhaps, of the unclear direction at the top.

The Venezuela Test

This debate has exposed Sir Keir’s weakness for decisiveness.

For a leader who loves saying “let me be clear,” he seems allergic to actually taking a stand.

Observers compared him to a blinky vole or a trembling curtain—someone who would struggle to act even when it’s critical.

Venezuela has turned into a mirror showing the Prime Minister’s cautious, hesitant style.

As far as international crises go, the country and Parliament are still waiting to see if Britain has a clear voice—or if the hesitations will continue.

Share on Facebook «||» Share on Twitter «||» Share on Reddit «||» Share on LinkedIn