Not really a question, just a further point on the university funding. There were 2 things you could have done that would have been much much fairer.
Either, make it a graduate contribution, similar to now, but instead of being an 'amount owing' make it a % of income over a fixed level, for a fixed number of years. That would really be progressive, and would avoid this situation of middle income people having to pay back more than the wealthy.
Or, make the loans interest free. So, a graduate can contribute more, but it doesn't grow and grow in the way it is going to - for some income groups they will be paying back far more than the 27k of fees borrowed, because of the interest. This would mean the wealthy paid back quicker, the poorer didn't pay so much, but you would avoid the trap of being a middle income worker who has to pay back 50k worth or so, because of the interest.
Neither of those things are rocket science, but would make the thing so much fairer than the proposed system. I also take massive issue with the fact that although it was peddled as 'contributions based on future income', students will receive bursaries because of their parents' income, irrespective of what they may end up earning, and so if you happen to come from a slightly better off family, you will be subsidising someone who may be earning far more than you are.