The battle for social democracy

As a firm social democrat and student rep trying desperately to argue the case for free education, I was impressed by Polly Toynbee's critique of Blair's "co-payment" agenda and her eloquent espousal of collective provision (Foolish and dangerous, January 16). But I do not understand how she can hold such values and yet support the higher education bill.

As she points out, tuition fees are part of a wider programme of marketisation of the public sector - basically a Thatcherite agenda. So rather than accept top-up fees in the hope they will satisfy Blair's appetite for marketising reform, we should regard them as a danger signal, setting a perilous precedent for future attacks on the welfare state. If we believe in social democracy, we need to argue for it consistently.

There is no doubt the aim of the Russell group is to establish a UK Ivy League and that it will lobby to raise the fee cap after the principle is established. Once the Pandora's box of variability is opened, there will be no going back. MPs should consider this before they vote.
Jessica Baily
Education officer, Sheffield University students' union

Please continue to urge the rebel MPs to stop sabotaging this reasonable social democratic and progressive move. I am a law student and should contribute for the benefits my degree will bring. My fees should be higher than that of, say, a philosophy graduate because my qualification will give me more earning power. Had I gone to Cambridge, the reputation of the university would further increase my earnings. Variability is arguably the most redistributive aspect of the package: the wealth of barrister graduates is redistributed to nursing students. Clearly a number of socialist MPs haven't figured this out yet.
Edward Rennie
London

The main argument for fees is that the cost of higher education should be born primarily by those people who benefit from it. By this reasoning, we should adopt the US model of private health care and we should privatise schools. Higher education is part of an integrated set of institutions that constitute the core of the public domain and which produce social and economic benefits to the population at large. Their value must be measured in terms of a global notion of societal benefit, rather than a narrow calculus of individual gain.

There is a broad consensus for the funding of public services through taxation. It is unclear why advocates of tuition fees seek to exempt university education from its domain.
Prof Shalom Lappin
King's College, London

Rebel Labour MPs should get off their hobby horse about "elite" education. Different universities and academic staffs differ in their quality and abilities, just as with any other profession. Staff in the Russell group, for example, perform best on just about any international metric chosen on teaching and research. This has nothing to do with student access. My own institution is both elite and open access, with an undergraduate population of about 33% from ethnic minorities, even higher in prestigious courses like medicine. Elite at UCL suggests ability not background. It deserves reward.
Dr David McAlpine
University College London

When we read of "elite" universities and "top" schools (Students present the university challenge, January 17), we know it refers more to the wealth of their resources and students than to the quality of teaching or the worth of the students' experience: private or (occasionally) selective state schools; universities with endowments and as many as half their undergraduates from private schools. They attract students because they give them the advantages money can buy and variable fees will institutionalise this privilege further, while the "bog standard" universities' status is further eroded. We should stop using those self-serving words if we wish to unlock the full academic potential of our population.
Elizabeth Jones
Manchester

When an elite 10% go to university, perhaps the elite should pay. When 50% of 18-year-olds go (rightly or wrongly) the chances are that many taxpayers will have students in their immediate or extended family much of the time. Income tax then looks both efficient and equitable as a means of getting the money - unless of course you are committed not to raise taxes. In that case, less efficient and more complex means must be found.
Peter West
Director, York Health Economics Consortium

The current shortfall in university funding amounts to some £2.5bn a year. This is half the £5bn which Tony Blair's unwise participation in George Bush's war on Iraq cost. So far the occupation of Iraq has cost the taxpayer some £1.25bn. It is estimated that the continued cost to the taxpayer up to 2006 will amount to around £3.5bn. In short, had Tony Blair not committed us, on a false prospectus, to George Bush's imperial adventure in Iraq, there could have been sufficient resources to fund the universities out of general taxation in the traditional manner. There would have been no need to cobble together the present fudge, with its elitist implications.
Correlli Barnett
East Carleton, Norwich