This term’s Cambridge Union elections see three candidates vying for the coveted President’s chair, with Asia Lambert of Newnham, Joshua Ellis of Queens’, and Charlotte Petter of Murray Edwards all in the running. Varsity spoke to all three this week to uncover what sets each apart from their rivals.

Membership fees

While there didn’t seem to be much difference of opinion, one of the strongest points of contention between the candidates was on the perennial issue of whether they would lower membership fees for the Union, which currently stand at £199 for life membership.

While there was a broad consensus that it would inappropriate for whoever ends up being President next Michaelmas to promise a reduction in the price of membership, Petter did propose a more ambitious plan than the other two candidates, who said that she “would try to implement payment plan instalments”.

The idea of allowing prospective members of the Union to pay the hefty membership fee in smaller instalments is one that has been thrown around in the past as a means of enhancing the appeal and accessibility of the Cambridge Union. However, it is one that is met by many with a great deal of scepticism.

On the possibility of payment by instalment, Lambert especially was incredibly wary, saying that it would “create instability” and that a situation where “you’ve got half the money now and you’re hoping you’re going to get half in six months’ time but can’t guarantee it” would prevent the committee from being able to confidently plan for the future.

By contrast, Petter said that moving away from a model where you can only buy membership with one lump payment is “the sort of thing that, if you don’t try, you won’t know”.

“The way you could negate or minimise potential losses,” she went on, “is to do it by two instalments – one in Michaelmas and one in Lent, with a higher instalment in Michaelmas” and “incentives to buy in full if you can, like eligibility for the Freshers’ Ball … only being available if you’ve paid in full.”

Lambert seemed unlikely to budge on the issue, however, saying that “the problem I have with it is because you cannot fundamentally guarantee that you are going to get that second instalment when you’re planning your budget for the year ahead in Michaelmas.

“[During Michaelmas] you decide what Lent gets, what Easter gets, what next Michaelmas gets, and a lot of your budget is going to rely on speculative money coming in which you cannot guarantee will be there.”

The candidates’ interest in a payment-by-instalment model went beyond the finances of both the Union and its prospective members.

While Lambert voiced concern over what planning uncertainties would mean for the speakers the Union could potentially invite and the events they could hold, Petter pointed to the potential insecurity that the upcoming redevelopment of the Union building could bring: “I know that a lot of the staff are worried about the potential impact on membership and it’s therefore probably quite a good time to be looking at new alternatives.”

Away from the option of instalments, the candidates all expressed an interest in paving the way for membership fees to come down in the long term.

“My hope is that, as President working with the longer-term members of the Union staff, I can put in place a strategy that can look to eventually reduce fees,” said Ellis, who had perhaps the most ambitious plans for impacting what happens to membership fees beyond his term-long tenure, envisioning fees halving over the next 10 years, returning to where they were a decade ago.

Challenging Perceptions

Varsity also asked the candidates about the common perception among some sections of the student body in Cambridge that the Union is quite insular and often appears more than a little cliquey.

While acknowledging that this is still the case, Ellis was quick to praise the incumbent President, James Hutt, “for widening the participation at the Union incredibly”, saying that under Hutt’s leadership, he feels as if they “appointed a diverse group of people”. He also voiced his intention to continue the new colleges committee, which keeps people who missed out on appointed roles involved in the Union.

Beyond continuing initiatives that have been put in motion by Hutt and his committee, Ellis suggested replacing an emergency debate with “debaters who have been to the workshops to showcase what they’ve learnt”, which he argues would serve to encourage more people to get involved with the debating side of the society.

For Petter, the best chance for the Union has to challenge the perception of it being a clique will come in Michaelmas, which gives the issue particular significance at this election.

“[In Michaelmas] you have new freshers, new faces who are potentially aren’t aware of any stereotypes or any stigmas that other people in Cambridge may already feel are attached to the Union,” she said. “It’s your best chance to turn over a new leaf and make sure people don’t hold anything against you.”

On what specifically she would do to sell the Union to a new cohort of freshers, Petter indicated that she would place an emphasis on events targeted at freshers at the start of the term.

A more specific proposal, from Lambert, was for a “freshers’ brunch”, the rationale being that “some colleges don’t have high levels of membership … so making sure that, as a new member, you get to know the people who are going to be in the building all the time, but also other people whom you might decide to meet up with and go to a talk with even if you’re not otherwise socially connected.”

Lambert also echoed Ellis by saying that while there is still a perception that if you’re President of the Union “maybe you’re a guy and you went to Eton”, this is a stereotype that is outdated and needs to be challenged.

Pointing out that she doesn’t have “this privileged background” and went to a state school, Lambert also said that a degree of the responsibility fell on the President and committee making sure people see them as “just normal students”.

Free Speech

Asked whether issues such no-platforming and safe spaces had any bearing on this contest, the candidates were all keen to stress the Union’s commitment to free speech and said that, despite the referendum over whether Julian Assange should have been invited last term, the growing prominence of these ideas have not changed much behind the scenes.

Current Speakers Officer, Josh Ellis, said that while “the referendum was a fantastic idea in the sense we had to think long and hard about people’s feelings”, there was “nobody on my list [of potential invitees] that I would have said ‘you know what, no, we’re too scared to do this, we’re not going to’.” If anything, I think the Union emerged more resilient, strong and sticking to what it stands for more proudly than before.”
That the Union emerged stronger after the Assange referendum was a sentiment with which Lambert strongly agreed.

She added that “we’re all increasingly more committed to making decisions about these kinds of issues collectively”, though stressed that the Union has always had a lengthy, careful and rigorous process when it comes to inviting speakers.

Petter reasserted that the Union is “fundamentally a free speech society.”

“It really has to be a case-by-case discussion depending on the individual you’re inviting and also depending on the mood and feel – both of Cambridge and general society – to that individual.”