Because of the peculiarities of Market Harborough topography, you get East Anglian regional television on that side of the town rather than East Midlands. (Here erecting an aerial involves more than just pointing it at Sandy and hoping for the best.) And over those few days Look East, the evening regional news programme, was obsessed with protests against rises against tuition fees by students at Cambridge University.
The more I watched these reports, the more ridiculous those students seemed to me. Here were the offspring of wealthy families venting their "anger" that they were no longer to be given thousands of pounds of other people's money. Objectively, this was a right-wing protest not a left-wing one.
I am old enough to think that middle-class youngsters have an unreasonable sense of entitlement these days. And if you add the symbolism of Oxbridge - I went to a comprehensive and had free school dinners, you know - then these reports were never going to bring out the best in me.
In calmer moments I am a great believer in higher education for its own sake. But that is an increasingly unfashionable view - particularly amongst university vice chancellors. I fear that something along the lines of this week's decision has been inevitable ever since the university sector expanded so rapidly under John Major.
But I do think I was on to something, because I was reminded of a post I wrote in July 2009 asking how Nick Clegg would sell his beloved pupil premium:
what will happen if popular schools in leafy suburbs start excluding children from middle class families in order to take children from working class families who bring more funding with them? And, other things being equal, this is what would happen if the pupil premium were successful.Well, the pupil premium has gone through almost without comment, but the issues raised by higher university fees are much the same. If we want to make society fairer and to be more progressive - or whatever your favourite buzzwords are - then it is hard to see how spending millions subsidising the higher education of the offspring of wealthy families fits in.
How would that play with parents in leafy, middle class suburbs? This matters because these are just the sort of areas which tend to elect Liberal Democrat MPs. It happens that Sheffield Hallam is a very good example of this kind of seat.
Yet those families may well be Liberal Democrat voters. for Liberal Democrat voters are often just the sort of people who will be disadvantaged by Liberal Democrat policies. In the long run, it is not the students we need to be afraid of at the ballot box so much as their parents.
And, paradoxically, it is those who like to think themselves on the radical wing of the party who tend to be the most vociferous in support of middle-class perks like subsidised degrees and child benefit for higher earners.
While I was writing this post, Simon Hughes has been on Newsnight to announce he would not be voting for tuition fees. But isn't that just asking the people of Bermondsey to pay taxes to send youngsters from more affluent boroughs to university?