Then, he stated government support for the general direction of travel suggested in the Browne review of higher education funding and student finance. Given the massive shift in position that the rapid move towards an unconstrained market in higher education would mean for Vince, this is at once brutally honest and deeply concerning.

Particular attention has been placed on the Liberal Democrats in the coverage of the higher education funding debate – they have, after all, long stated clear opposition to the deeply regressive tuition fee model (indeed, it was noted in Tuesday’s Commons debate that a six-step plan to the complete abolition of tuition fees is still just one click away from their website’s homepage!). And in addition to this, every single Liberal Democrat MP signed a personal pledge to their electorate in the run-up to the election, undoubtedly gaining significant votes from students and their families in the process. So it is right that those Liberal Democrats, such as Vince, who decide to so dramatically turn away from this now that they are on the other side of polling day are pulled up on it. And, as has already been evident in the protests and student action taking place up and down the country today, there is no doubt that this will happen.

But, such is the extremity of the review’s proposals, one would hope that all politicians who recognise the importance of a university education being accessible to more than just a narrow and privileged elite would roundly reject it. Not many could have expected the report to allow for provision to be made for the complete removal of the tuition fee cap – a proposal which would mean a move towards US-style fees levels, where Ivy League institutions can charge upwards of £20,000 a year. Who could seriously see this as enabling fair access for all, or who would not be concerned about the impact such sky-high levels of debt would have on graduates from all backgrounds? I would have hoped that one would not need to have signed a pledge to oppose that.

And, most worryingly of all, this hike in student contributions is predicated upon and justified through massive cuts in public funding of the sector – leaving the state effectively pulling out of higher education altogether, acting mainly as a conduit for student finance, rather than providing any teaching funding, with only subjects of particular importance getting funding. This ideological move is entirely unacceptable and must be roundly rejected.

Meanwhile, the review somewhat disingenuously offers a lazy and insubstantial critique of the ‘graduate tax’ option, in which a basic ‘pure’ graduate tax has been presented as the alternative (a model with lifelong payments, kicking in at the threshold for the basic income tax rate, and with no upper limit for contributions). Given our substantial representations to the review, Browne and his panel members are well aware that NUS has never proposed such a crude approach – and we are forced to surmise that this caricature of a graduate tax has been used in this way because the review team were unable to offer an adequate rejection of our actual proposals.

Despite all this I do remain hopeful. Many Liberal Democrat backbenchers have reiterated their opposition to any hike in tuition fees – and if enough of them do so, we must hope that the government sufficiently fears the impact of such a deep division that it backs away from these proposals. Even if similar proposals were to go to a vote, a progressive coalition of Liberal Democrats who stand by their principles, together with a Labour party which supports the abolition of tuition fees and a move towards a progressive graduate tax model and other progressive nationalists and independents, could defeat it in parliament. For this, though, it will be important that all of us who share a belief in all of those with the ability and desire to study at university continue to strongly make this argument in the weeks and months to come.

And there are, in fact, aspects within the review’s proposals which are to be congratulated. Given the position of graduates in today’s economic climate, we have been calling for an increase to the threshold for loan repayments for some time, and so the proposal to raise this to £21,000 is welcome – especially since it takes the lowest 20 per cent of graduates by earnings out of repaying their loan altogether. We have long campaigned to bring part-time students into the system and the proposed extension of loans to part-time students could have a significant impact in widening access. And we are pleased that the panel has taken up our call to subject higher education’s regulation and accountability measures to a root and branch rethink – but we must guard against these being watered down in coming months, as they in fact were in 2003.

The review’s findings have certainly left us with a fight on our hands – a fight which has been forced on us rather than sought. But the alternative – to accept the effective mass privatisation of the higher education – is simply not an option.