Government Official Rejects Allegations of Declining to Label Venezuelan Leader Extradition Illegal to Appease US President.

Good morning. Before Christmas, the Labour leader had intended to use the first week back after the holiday recess to focus on government actions to reduce the living expenses. He outlined this case yesterday in a piece where he referenced measures including proposals to cut utility costs. Unfortunately, Starmer’s economic PR blitz has been overshadowed of the headlines by Donald Trump, and his distinct strategy to guaranteeing his voters get access to affordable power.

Not a single figure in British political life seems very keen on embracing the American method – which is probably good news for Norway.

But there is a heated discussion under way about what the UK government should be willing to say about Trump’s decision to abduct the Venezuelan president, and replace him with someone expected to be more compliant with American interests, particularly in relation to the nation's petroleum sector.

The Prime Minister has declined to censure the American intervention, and the government has avoided questions about whether or not it considered what happened as lawful. Recently, European Union members except one nation issued a joint statement which, while not overtly critical, did stress the importance of global rules, and by inference accuse Trump of disregarding it. It said:

EU members urge calm and caution by all parties, to prevent a worsening and to ensure a peaceful solution to the crisis.

The Union recalls that, under all circumstances, the principles of the rules-based order and the United Nations charter must be respected. Members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to defend those principles, as a pillar of the international security architecture.

Mike Tapp, was doing an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was declining to say the Venezuelan leader's removal broke global statutes because he was worried of antagonising Trump, Tapp responded:

Absolutely not. The British government is, and will, be in discussions with the US administration. And it’s for the Americans to lay out the juridical rationale for the steps that they’ve undertaken. And we’re also talking with key partners looking at the legal aspect of this.

But recently, in an interview on the BBC, Emily Thornberry (and a ex- 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.

Questioned about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in violation of global rules, Thornberry said, because the PM was in government, he had to weigh up “multiple factors”. 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 not a legal action.

The Prime Minister may well wish to listen to what the justification is from the US administration. I can state before us and say I literally 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 Conservative leader, are also giving talks, at mid-morning and 1pm in turn. All the leaders are gearing up to the Scottish parliament vote in May.

Morning: The Prime Minister is on a visit in Berkshire where he is due to speak to the media.

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

2.30pm: The home secretary, takes queries in the Commons.

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