PMQs – snap verdict PMQs has never been a forum that handles nuance particularly well, and the format – indeed, even the furnishings in the chamber – encourages everything to be presented in binary. And yet today Keir Starmer was trying to pull off some mixed messaging; broad support for the government over the principle of a robust response to Russia, while criticising the government for not going far enough. Boris Johnson was also caught in the same trap himself, trying to maintain that there is cross-party support for the government’s stance on Putin, while at the same time hacking the opposition in the shins. Johnson’s messaging got particularly confused when he delivered one of the significant news announcements of the session – telling Starmer that the government has now asked Ofcom for review RT’s licence. But immediately after saying this, and appearing to take credit for robust action against a Kremlin fake news machine, Johnson insisted on adding a rider about his commitment to the principle of free speech. He said: We live in a democracy, Mr Speaker, and we live in a country that believes in free speech and I think it’s important that we should leave it up to Ofcom rather than to politicians to decide which media organisations to ban. Sometimes mixed messaging can win over the support of people on both sides of an argument, but this just left people thoroughly confused as to whether Johnson favours a crackdown on RT or not. Of course, if free speech means the right to spout spurious claims without challenge, then it is not hard to see why Johnson is such a fan and his broad response to Starmer’s claims about the flaws with his Russia strategy – which was that Britain has been “out in front” in terms of sanctions, and that no one was doing more to address the “dirty money” problem – will be seen as bogus by anyone with more than a passing knowledge of the issue. Starmer picked out the holes in Johnson’s case quite gracefully, and twice he stressed that he wasn’t trying to make party political capital out of the issue. He certainly held the moral high ground, although the case against the government may have been made more powerfully by the ferocious barracking directed at Caroline Lucas when she asked about Russian interference in elections – a performance that sounded like evidence of a party that has something to hide. (See 12.22pm.) Johnson, as usual, was far less squeamish about going party political, and he directed two jibes at Labour, over Barry Gardiner taking money for office costs from a Chinese agent, and over Labour leftwingers blaming Nato for the Ukraine crisis, and one against the SNP, over its former leader Alex Salmond appearing on RT. It was classic whataboutery, and not relevant to the criticisms being made by Starmer or Ian Blackford, but all three attacks were sharp, memorable and effective. They went a long way towards rescuing him in what was otherwise a difficult outing. Afternoon summary Keir Starmer has urged the government to end the “era of impunity” in the UK for Russian oligarchs. (See 2.47pm.) He was speaking at PMQs ahead of a Commons debate that saw Labour set out details of the links between several prominent Tory donors and the Kremlin. (See 4.51pm.) But ministers have refused to accept that their Russian-linked donors are suspect, insisting that it is wrong to see them as Vladmir Putin’s cronies. (See 9.32am.) Restoring the Palace of Westminster without finding a new home for MPs could take up to 76 years, with a repairs bill reaching £22bn, a new report shows. PA says: In an initial assessment of the cost and schedule for action required to save the palace, and an analysis of how this would be impacted by keeping MPs on site, the project’s sponsor body and delivery authority looked at a range of possible scenarios for carrying out the work. The cheapest option would involve a “full decant” of the palace for between 12 and 20 years, with the work costing in the region of £7bn to £13bn. In this scenario, with MPs elsewhere for much of the time, the report estimated the restoration would take between 19 and 28 years. If MPs were to maintain a “continued presence” in the palace, where “all essential and highly desirable functions could be accommodated but in more condensed space”, it found that the work would cost more and take longer. In one scenario, business would remain within the Commons Chamber “until such a point is reached whereby all operations are transferred to another space within the Palace of Westminster (assumed to be the House of Lords Chamber), to allow the rest of the work to proceed”, the report said. It estimated this would boost restoration costs to between £9.5bn and £18.5bn, taking 26 to 43 years. And in a third possible scenario - which would cost the most and take the longest - business would remain within the Chamber “throughout the entirety of the restoration and renewal programme of works”, with “no transfer”. It is estimated this would cost between £11bn and £22bn and take in the region of 46 to 76 years. Two men have been charged after malicious communications were sent to Labour deputy leader Angela Rayner. Scotland Yard’s leadership has hit back at Sadiq Khan’s ousting of the commissioner of the Metropolitan police, Cressida Dick, claiming “due process” was not followed by the mayor of London and calling on the home secretary, Priti Patel, to review her alleged unfair treatment. Social mobility experts have warned that government proposals to introduce minimum eligibility requirements for higher education loans in England will hit poorest students hardest, in effect “closing off university prospects at age three” for the most disadvantaged. That’s all from me for today. But there is more coverage of the Ukraine crisis on global live blog. It’s here. Andrew Robathan, a Tory peer and a former armed forces minister, told Times Radio the UK should “stop being pathetic” and adopt a more robust stance on Russian oligarchs. He told the station: I think we have to get the legal position right. And one of the problems we’ve had in this country, I don’t know if you know about a book called Putin’s People, which I’m reading at the moment, and the author, whose name escapes me, I think she was an FT journalist, has been sued for libel in our courts. And of course she’s got lots of overpaid lawyers prosecuting her. Now this is a war between Ukraine and Putin’s Russia. And we must stop playing by our rules entirely. I’m not saying be illegal, we have to stop being pathetic when it comes to rich oligarchs who are who were basically gangsters who made their money in Russia. (The book, Putin’s People, is by Catherine Belton, and it’s excellent.) Rishi Sunak, the chancellor, remains the UK’s most popular senior politician, according to new polling from YouGov. Salmond should be expelled from privy council over RT links, say Scottish Lib Dems Alex Salmond is facing fresh cross-party pressure to cancel his chat show on the Kremlin-funded channel RT after Alex Cole-Hamilton, the Scottish Liberal Democrat leader, called for the former first minister to be expelled from the privy council. Like George Galloway, another Scottish ex-MP for both Labour and Respect, Salmond anchors a weekly show on RT which is produced by Tasmina Ahmed-Sheikh, also a former Scottish National party MP. It routinely features Salmond’s allies, including Angus MacNeil, the SNP MP for the Western Isles. Salmond became a member of the privy council in 2007. It is an honour mostly granted to senior parliamentarians, who can be allowed access to secret intelligence material on privy council terms. Cole-Hamilton has written to Mark Spencer MP, lord president of the Privy Council, and to the Lord Privy Seal Baroness Evans of Bowes Park, asking for him to expelled from it. RT had portrayed Russia’s incursion into Ukraine as “a liberation”, he said. I believe Mr Salmond’s close and financial association with an agent of a hostile state should therefore render him unfit to offer further advice to Her Majesty the Queen from his role as a privy councillor. His decision to continue hosting the show came under heavy attack from Nicola Sturgeon, Salmond’s successor as SNP leader and first minister, earlier on Wednesday. (See 2.14pm.) Other senior figures in the SNP quickly lined up alongside her, applauding the decision by the UK government to ask the broadcasting regulator Ofcom to review RT’s broadcasting licence. Salmond’s party Alba said earlier this week it “condemns the violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity” by Russia’s recognition of Donetsk and Luhansk but it said Nato’s influence needed to be curbed, to protect “Russia’s own security interests.” Labour complains about government"s refusal to give details of further arms being supplied to Ukraine Labour has written to complain about the lack of transparency following Boris Johnson’s statement at prime minister’s questions that the UK would be providing “lethal aid” to Ukraine as part of “a further package of military support”. Shortly after Downing Street said “no further details” could be provided, citing “operational security reasons,” prompting Labour’s shadow defence spokesman to complain that MPs and the public were being kept in the dark at what could be a significant commitment. John Healey, writing to defence secretary Ben Wallace, said, while the opposition supported the principle of supplying arms to Ukraine to help defend itself, it was “also right that MPs continue to be properly updated”. Overnight the Sun reported that the UK was preparing to send a Sky Sabre radar system to be deployed in Poland along its 240km border with Ukraine. Mounted on trucks it is also capable of firing small missiles to hit rockets or planes. Defence sources added two units Sky Sabre units from the Royal Artillery would be heading to Poland imminently, travelling on land and by boat to reach the border within days. Labour said that previously, on 17 January, Wallace had come to the Commons to say that the UK had supplied anti-tank weapons to Ukraine. Then on 10 February Wallace had set out the further supply of body armour, helmets and combat boots, in a written statement. But on this occasion it appeared no formal detail was forthcoming. Healey urged Wallace, in the light of the prime minister’s declaration, “to provide details to parliament as soon as possible”. The i’s Arj Singh has posted this on Twitter explaining why a question from the Labour MP Imran Hussain about the Islamphobia allegations against Mark Spencer, leader of the Commons, was disallowed during PMQs. (See 12.27pm.) Ofcom says it won"t hestitate to take "swift action" against RT if necessary - but stresses rules drawn up by parliament Ofcom has released the text of a letter from its chief executive, Dame Melanie Dawes, to Nadine Dorries, the culture secretary, responding to her call for it to review RT’s broadcasting licence. (See 12.09pm and 1.31pm.) In her letter, Dawes effectively says her organisation is already on the case and that it will “not hesitate to take swift action where necessary”. She also says that Ofcom is only enforcing rules drawn up by parliament. She explains: Ofcom’s Broadcasting Code, which reflects the rules established by parliament in the Communications Act, requires all licensees to ensure that news – in whatever form – is reported with due accuracy and presented with due impartiality. It is acceptable for broadcasters to present issues from a particular perspective provided that alternative views and opinions are also represented. It would not be acceptable for any of our licensees to broadcast one-sided propaganda. UK sanctions risk "being seen as feeble by Russia", says David Davis David Davis, the Conservative former Brexit secretary who is one of the few Tory MPs to have publicly called for Boris Johnson’s resignation, told Radio 4’s World at One that the government’s sanctions package against Russia risked being seen as “feeble”. He told the programme: Whilst one understands that the government wants to make a staged response, this risks being seen as feeble by Russia. They immediately responded by stepping up their military activity. It doesn’t provide the sort of robust, exemplary leadership that we should be giving to a western alliance which is at its weakest point probably in living memory. It risks gives an early warning to all the oligarchs we should be penalising. In response to a point of order after PMQs, Nadhim Zahawi, the education secretary, told MPs that he would be making a Commons statement tomorrow about access to universities. As my colleagues Richard Adams and Sally Weale report, Zahawi is expected to announce that students in England could be blocked from going to university unless they get strong GCSE or A-level grades.