Simon Hughes

In no other country would someone of the calibre of Simon Hughes even have dared to enter politics, let alone rise to become the deputy leader of a political party. One fact alone should have sunk him - he was first elected to Parliament in 1983 thanks to running a queer-bashing campaign (proclaiming himself the "Straight Choice") against homosexual activist Peter Tatchell, despite his own secret proclivity for boys.

Furthermore he only apologized for the campaign in 2006, and admitted his homosexuality - actually he said he was "bisexual" but that is just another layer of denial - after being outed by The Sun. Surprisingly Tatchell, who must have known all along, was completely forgiving - as far as I recall, his reasoning being that societal oppression was responsible for Hughes' utterly contemptible behaviour.

Hughes now enjoys the title of adviser to the government on access to higher education - which is to say that LibDem leader Nick Clegg gave him a sinecure without any influence whatever. From which, nonetheless, he seeks to establish himself as the leader of the "left wing" of the LibDems against the moment when the Coalition fails and the party is reduced to a rump (sic) in the subsequent general election.

According to the Guardian, Hughes has declared that universities should drastically limit their intake of privately educated pupils if they want to charge undergraduates up to £9,000 a year.

I think my message to the universities is: You have gained quite a lot in the settlement. Yes, you've lost lots of state money, but you've got another revenue stream that's going to protect you. You now have to deliver in turn. You cannot expect to go on as you are. It has failed miserably.

Umm - leaving aside the fact that what has "failed miserably" is precisely the system he continues to advocate, how does he think the ability of the state to impose admissions criteria has been enhanced by reducing the amount of state subsidy paid to the universities?

Fee-paid universities have to compete for the best and brightest in order to maintain or improve their international reputations - for that's where the big money is to be won. They cannot - indeed the best already do not - care what secondary school a candidate comes from: they must judge them by results.

And those are so damning of the council-run of the mill state schools that Hughes' logically incoherent comment can only be construed as a sop to the ineffectual "progressive" teachers who make up the left wing of the LibDem party, which out-satirizes the Monster Raving Loony Party.