Ciara Nugent, Fitzwilliam:

The main criticism levied at Brand’s Union speech was his failure to advance on the ideas and complaints raised in his Paxman interview. He offered us no pragmatic plan to realise his so-called ‘revolution’, dodging questions on the practicality of ‘electronic democracy’ and seeming to confuse even himself on the issue of voting. But why should we expect anything more? Brand is not the man to fix our problems – the complex political reform he advocates would be disastrous under the direction of someone whose need to entertain runs away with them as much as his does – but he might be the man to point them out.

His facetiousness is grating for some – especially those who aren’t fans of his comedy – and his verbosity risks disguising his well-founded protests as inane posturing, but without his quirks would we be listening at all? The ideas he wants us to think about aren’t easy. They challenge systems we take for granted, systems from which many of us benefit disproportionately. Someone raising these issues has to entertain – or at least grab our attention – if they don’t want to be dismissed as boring. If we’re still thinking about what he said, even a couple of days later, Brand is achieving what he set out to do: forcing us to consider if the flawed system we have now really is the only option.

Kenza Bryan, Corpus Christi:

Russell Brand’s talk at the Union was hilarious and mesmerising in equal measure – but he never actually mentioned how to create the fairer society he dreams of. He did however put a huge amount of rhetorical energy into making us see life in a simpler, more ethical way. Where I expected a rant at Cambridge-style elitism, he talked instead about the solutions our generation has the capacity to come up with, in a way that felt refreshing and empowering. The humility and thoughtfulness that pierced through the jokey, self-assured tone were certainly impressive, even though Russell skilfully deflected questions that threatened to take him up on his more serious points, never properly addressing the idea that the refusal to vote could promote political apathy.

Russell warmed to the audience’s almost embarrassingly giggly appreciation but I just wish that he could combine the two elements of his personality a bit more skilfully – hone the wit without compromising on his more fiercely serious political intelligence. In fact the dangerously ironic use of the word “poofs”, weird references to grooming and his persistent attempts to dominate the interviewer confirmed that Russell Brand is above all a performer, albeit a startlingly moral one.

Colm Murphy, Magdalene:

I found Russell Brand’s evening at the Union at times annoying, entertaining, intellectually stimulating and overall enjoyable. But one aspect was slightly grating: his propensity for using sex-related analogies.

It should be said, I have nothing against using that type of metaphor used sparingly. For instance, when Brand compared the difficulties of achieving a truly representative democracy to challenges of “making a woman climax”, I laughed a lot. But his use of similar images every five minutes only desensitised the effect. In short, the repetition made it boring. Brand is a wild character, but when it comes to risqué imagery, last night he was rather predictable. Either he has a one-track mind, or he was trying to grab our attention in a shallow way. If it was the latter, I wish he hadn’t done it so often. He had some things to say that were inherently provocative and interesting - he did not need to constantly attempt to ‘spruce up’ his message with sex.

Isabel Adomakoh-Young, Trinity:

I was sorry to hear about Brand’s use of the word "poofs’" in his Union speech – primarily because I think it’s reprehensible to use homophobic language (in jest or seriously), but also because it will have distracted, in subsequent media and conversation, from what was probably otherwise an intelligent and entertaining talk. And that’s his problem; Brand is not a homophobe, or even really as vain or trivial as he comes across. But his endless capacity for wearing stupid vests and being funny to the point of irritating means that the often lucid things he has to say about the world go underappreciated. I think if his detractors were to read his thoughts on paper, 9/10 would not only engage with his ideas, they’d agree with them; it’s definitely worth suspending your disbelief for a moment and taking about valuable lessons you can take from a complicated (and evidently at times inconsiderate) man. He was never calling for his revolution, he was calling for a revolution – as he put it in his Newsnight interview, "I’m just here to draw attention to a few ideas". I think we could do without the slurs though.

Ellie Gould, Pembroke:

I was surprised when I heard Russell Brand was to make an appearance at the Cambridge Union, given his recent turn to highly left-wing politics. Choosing to air them in such a private, exclusive setting seemed to me an odd choice, until it became clear that he was using the opportunity to rally more people to his shaky idea of a revolution. Whilst he is undeniably an exciting and energetic speaker, he often uses such unnecessarily convoluted vocabulary that it can be hard to understand the point he's making. At times it seemed he didn't even know himself. Blatant contradictions were poorly disguised by attempts to be outrageous by swearing and insulting members of the audience and the public, moments after explaining how important it was to have a society based on kindness. It became obvious that although he felt drastic change was needed, something the audience seemed to agree on, yet he had no clear idea of what better system could be introduced. Instead, he avoided difficult questions by encouraging the audience to come up with the new system themselves. He may have garnered support by describing a utopian ideal that we all wanted, but he clearly had no idea how to get there.

Read more about Russell Brand's controversial Union appearance here