Of course, in this article, she is being sarcastic, setting up what she thinks is a straw man, but still:

The government replies that 80% of taxpayers never went to university, so why should they pay too? Besides, if taxes rose, there are better spending priorities. Why should the 50% with too few opportunities fork out for the lucky ones? That's very nearly a good enough answer - but it raises key questions, too.

For that is not social democratic thinking: on that basis, why should those without children pay for schools? Or those without cars pay for roads? Or the great majority who never use trains pay for the 4% who commute by rail? Or those outside London contribute £1bn a year to the tube? Or southerners pay for the Angel of the North, while ballet-haters pay for Covent Garden? And why should the majority pay for social housing or tax credits they will never use?

Once you start to question who should pay for what, the idea of national collective provision crumbles. Where is the line in the sand? Where does it stop? Is there really something about universities that is clearly, qualitatively different to any of the above? You might just argue that there is a stronger personal financial gain to be had from a degree which justifies a personal contribution. But the same case might be made for why the suburban commuter should pay the full cost of his train, paying for his pleasure at living somewhere salubrious. The real question is this: does Tony Blair have a clear idea where to draw his red line in the sand - a line defining Labour and Conservative territory on who pays for what?

"Social democratic thinking." "Collective provision.*" Only some of the many terms designed to cover up the basic philosophy of the Robin Hood Principle:

"You have it. I believe someone needs it worse than you do. Maybe me. Maybe someone else. So I get to take it from you. If you resist, I will hurt you."

And in the world of the Left, this is the height of moral virtue.

Leftists cannot conceive that this might be the wrong way to do things. Wealth redistribution is ground into them at the molecular level. Note her touching faith that a pound in the hands of the State will certainly go to better use than if that pound is left in the hands of the owner. So the author will not see the irony of the questions she is asking, any more than I can see in the infrared. But some of her readers might.

.

*I will admit, the term "collective provision" is a new one on me though. I'll make a note.