People are also forgetting about how expensive London is compared to the rest of the country. I never even applied to Imperial for undergrad because I knew I couldn't afford living in London for 3 or 4 years. It is beyond doubt one of the least student-friendly cities in the world (let alone the UK). I think I spent more money in 1 year at IC than I did in 3 years at UMIST... Imagine having to pay 15k on top of that?
Balls. You'd only have to pay however many k if your parents could afford it, as Sykes will hasten to assure and reassure you and prospective students till he's blue in the face. If you're poor, you pay nothing.
Funnily enough, I happen to believe that he's reasonably sincere about that - at least for the time being. Your mileage may vary.
Sunil. Don't stoop to insults: it doesn't do your case any good. I happen to think that you are missing the point. Education, like healthcare and a couple of other things, should be delivered at a quality independent of a person's wealth and ideally, any other discriminating factors. The only reliable way to achieve this is to have it free at the point of delivery, funded via universal progressive taxation, which can easily be tailored to the individual's ability to pay at national level. Even if you reject the concept of universal free provision, you must accept that to have college determine who gets support and who doesn't (as under the current proposal) is open to corruption and other forms of abuse (say, based on favoured schools, or people with the surname Sykes).