EVERY week for the last month, I've jettisoned the initial drafts of this column. I've given up on them in dismay and bewilderment, and opted for an easier subject.

The pros and cons of the war in Iraq; the ins and outs of the Hutton Inquiry; the swings and roundabouts of the accounts of Mr George Reynolds - all are easier than coming to a conclusion on tuition fees.

Some weeks my drafts accuse Tony Blair of complete betrayal of the country; others commend the brave and principled way he is solving an almost impossible problem.

Despite my pathetic indecision, Mr Blair is so convinced of his argument that he is prepared to kill his career for it; many of his backbenchers are so certain in their opposition that they are prepared to drive the most popular Prime Minister of our era from office.

And so, as we stand on the brink of a potentially cataclysmic political week and in the hope that my fourth attempt is more fortunate than its predecessors, some thoughts...

* The Government is right in trying to offer a university place to everyone who wants one. Even a degree as apparently worthless as media studies or Bob Dylan lyrics has merit. A degree is about learning to think, marshalling your thoughts, growing up and finding out who you are.

* All parties agree universities need more money. The Government's tuition fees will raise more than £1bn - equivalent of a penny on income tax - that is painless to many of us.

* But yesterday, the Ministry of Defence managed to over-spend by £3.1bn. So why can't the Government find a paltry billion for universities?

* The average graduate earns £250,000 more over a lifetime than a non-graduate. Given that the taxpayer is already paying for 5/6ths of a degree, surely it's fair to ask a student to invest £9,000 in return for their life's riches.

* In fact, this is in effect - by stealth - a good old-fashioned Labour tax on the richest.

* The political reality is that if this Bill goes down, possibly taking Mr Blair with it, neither Labour nor the Conservatives will dare tackle the issue of university funding in their manifestos at the next election. That means it will be a decade before this issue is raised again, by which time a dozen of the 89 universities will have closed or merged, reducing the number of people with the opportunity to study further.

* Of course, the above argument pre-supposes that parties don't blatantly break their manifesto pledges as Labour is doing quite disgracefully on tuition fees.

* Still, £9,000 of tuition fees to be paid back over a lifetime are far less likely to put off people from going to university than the current system where at least £3,000 has to be paid up-front by parents.

* Education should be available free to all irrespective of their ability to pay. When new medicinal opportunities become available, like life-saving drugs, the state pays for them through the NHS; when new educational opportunities become available, like life-enhancing degrees or nursery places, so the state must surely pay for them.

* Tuition fees set a frightening precedent. If a graduate has to pay for his degree on the grounds that he earns more because of it, shouldn't someone who breaks their leg or who suffers childhood cancer pay back the NHS out of their adult earnings? Or, if I promise never to use the railways, do I get a tax rebate?

Perhaps I should have jettisoned this draft as well...