by Martin Roche

Amid all the noise and protest about the tripling of student tuition fees, the real nub of the issue - that public funding for universities in England is being cut by 80 per cent - was obscured.

There was no proper public debate about what in effect is the privatisation of higher education in England. The Conservative and Labour parties had an unholy pact that kept the issue of university funding off the General Election agenda and we now all know that the solemn promise to end tuition fees made by the Lib Dems was ditched at high speed in favour of what Nick Clegg has described as "a progressive policy."

For students from 2012, what the coalition says is progressive is real live debt.

The government has argued that the state of the public finances gave it no choice but to change higher education funding arrangements. Well of course, this is nonsense. Governments always have alternatives. They always have choices. In this case the government chose to take higher education and make it subject to market forces.

To me, this is not only intellectually flawed, socially divisive and financially very high risk; it also puts political dogma before the economic interests of the nation.

Universities have been cast adrift to, on the whole, fend for themselves. Somehow or other (we have not been told how) market forces will raise teaching standards, widen participation and improve the quality and range of graduate output.

Not only are we putting the cost of higher education on to the young, we're also embarking on a huge experiment that says the market will produce the outcomes the nation needs. Those who point to the US as an example of a successful higher education market need to look again. It's not.

Are our universities fit to meet the management challenges of losing 80 per cent of core funding? They'll all say they are, though they can say no other as to do so would be to invite certain failure. We'll have to trust them, though remember we're trusting them with our global economic competitiveness as much as with the education of our young people.

In the meantime our Asian competitors are pouring public and private money into higher education, more graduates and wider access. Spend a few minutes trawling the internet and you'll find numerous trusted sources on how the Asian giants are spending far more than us in GDP terms on higher education. They are becoming intellectual giants, not just giants in manufacture and assembly.

Our universities are our key to future competitiveness and prosperity. If we want to stay competitive we'd better be sure we have the brain power to do it and the ability to provide higher education to every single person capable of contributing to the national good.

The alternative is to slip behind. It's surely no time for experimentation. It's time to stop talking about a university education in terms in terms of personal gain and talk rather about national benefit.

• Martin Roche MA runs Canterbury-based communications consultancy Anchor Reputation Management. He is a graduate of Aberdeen University where he read politics and international relations.