Labour discover that university funding is rather harder than they wanted to admit

Unlike most of the 'Comment is Free' contributors (do you get a pitchfork and a burning torch when you submit your first comment?), I'm rather more tolerant of Ed Milliband's suggestion that they would cap tuition fees at £6,000 per annum. That is not to say that I support it particularly.

It is at least an acknowledgement that the future funding of our universities cannot rely solely on government, especially if you want to provide a world class education to as many people as might want it.

Labour's drive over thirteen years to massively increase the number of young people going to university appeared to be built on the backs of university lecturers and academic administrators, with salaries kept low, class sizes increasing and facilities stretched beyond capacity. And given that, with finite resources, you will always have rationing of some sort, something was inevitably going to give.

As one of those who was always nervous about the infamous pledge, the events following the publication of the Browne Review were akin to the slow motion unfolding of a train wreck. And yes, you can argue that Liberal Democrats did what they could to improve fairness, but the brutal fact is that if something is provided at below cost price, and then you remove the subsidy, you're not going to be popular. Being right, assuming you are, isn't the same as popular.

There are so many facets to the debate that simply talking about the cost deflects the debate away from such basic questions as "do we need 50% of our young people to have a degree?". Or, if the state is to support students, what priorities might be set? Grants for mathematicians and scientists, or reduced fees for those whom the State believe we have a need of - if you can apply that theory to immigration, you can surely apply it to education.

So, Ed is merely tinkering at the fringes. He's allowed, but I'm not convinced that the politics are that profound...