Stephen,
This should really be in the politics section...
But seriously, I agree with the bulk of what you say, but disagree with your final sentence on under-graduate grants in specific subject areas,
Nurses, until recently got grants for first degree study. But large numbers, didn't even complete the nursing course (drop out rates with nurse trainees were far higher than other non-nursing degrees), didn't once they graduated go into nursing, didn't once they started nursing continue with nursing. The got an education, free, and then walked away from the profession. Why, I have to ask you, would you think nurses should be treated any better than other graduates. I don't think nurses special, they do a job like the rest of us, and they should take on the responsibilities of doing that job. If you really want to treat nurses as a special case then you should make them pay fees, but front load the salaries so when they engaged with proper nursing they got paid slightly more, so their fees were covered by, say, 10 years of front loaded salaries.
Doctors actually pay for their first degree, but all post graduate study is free. So many doctors will get three, four or five years of post graduate training free. Why, I have to ask you, should a Doctor be treated different to a Physicist?
As for STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Maths) under-graduates should they be treated better than, say, an Accounting or Law undergraduates. I see no justification.
There is a problem, I have to admit, with under-graduate students who're taking first degree courses for professions where they'll never hit the earning threshold to pay back their fees - media studies, golf green management, this could be stopped by reducing the number of courses.
There are also large numbers of Humanities subjects where funding or course availability should not be altered. Undergrads studying English, say, should still have plenty of course choice - graduates in Humanities from about the best 80 universities will be in demand by commerce and industry and the vast majority will earn enough to pay back their loans and build a nest-egg for the future. The vast majority of graduates of the best universities do not go hungry. There is nothing wrong with rigorous Humanities Courses. And even with grade inflation, most HR teams know the difference between a 2.1 from Nottingham and a 2.1 from Nottingham Trent.
There is a problem with the sheer number of universities, the sheer number of soft-option courses, and something should be done about that.
There is much to commend in your manifesto, but a good deal to disagree with.