Voting has begun for the position of Chancellor of the University of Cambridge.

The Senate House opened on Friday 14th at 10am to allow alumni with an MA degree or higher to vote for the next Chancellor.

This has been the most hotly contested Chancellor's election in history with four candidates running for the position - Lord Sainsbury, the official candidate, Abdul Arian, Michael Mansfield and Brian Blessed.

Competition of such strength has not been seen in Chancellor elections for some time, since this is the first instance in 164 years that the position has been actively contested.

This is also the first time an election for a Cambridge Chancellor will use the single transferrable vote.

The position of Chancellor is primarily as the constitutional head of the University. Roles include important statutory duties, supporting the work of the Vice-Chancellor and colleges, advising the University on disputed matters and handing out Honorary Degrees.

Voting will close at 8pm on Saturday 15th. The vote count is expected to finish late on Sunday evening and a result is expected shortly after.

 

A round up of Hustings:

Brian Blessed opened the Chancellors’ hustings on Monday night in full force, quoting Shakespeare and tweaking the noses of audience members in the front row.

He promised to be “completely involved” in student life and was keen to be a student himself.

Asked how he would improve access, he answered: “I haven’t a clue. You have here a prospective Chancellor who is coming here to learn.” As a state schooled student himself, he saw himself as one to inspire others.

Socialist barrister Michael Mansfield was next to the podium on Tuesday evening. His speech had a very clear focus, stressing that “education is not a commodity but a right.”

He attacked the government over tuition fees and referred to his experiences of sensitive court cases as proof of his suitability for the Chancellorship.

Mansfield also criticised the University on access saying, “I know they’re trying, but it obviously isn’t enough.”

Abdul Arain was first to the floor on Wednesday evening, in a two-part hustings between him and Lord Sainsbury.

He highlighted local positions he had held, including chairing several Mill Road committees. He championed at length independent stores and their fight against chain stores.

Asked what he would do to help access, he stressed his diverse background in comparison to other candidates, stating his belief that this would attract students from underrepresented groups.

He added: “As a symbol I believe I could inspire more students who would never have thought of applying.”

Lord Sainsbury, the official candidate chosen by the University, closed the hustings on Wednesday.

He stressed the importance of Cambridge’s world position. Throughout the hustings he retained a modest view of the role of Chancellor, believing it to be more a ceremonial role.

He declined to discuss a few of the issues raised on the basis that the Chancellor should not be involved.

Sainsbury maintained his support for tuition fees, which were brought in by his political party.

He argued that unless evidence emerges that increasing fees is damaging social mobility and preventing students from underprivileged backgrounds from applying, then fees are a necessary condition in order to maintain the high standard of British Universities.

 

Analysis - Tristan Dunn

The outcome of the election is far from clear; Blessed is being touted by students as the ‘runaway favourite’ while many in the University itself believe Sainsbury has it covered.

One of the major problems with not having an election in 164 years is that you just don’t know how many people are going to turn up and there are no opinion polls.

Indeed, there are whispers that the University has had a logistical nightmare organising this week’s election – nobody living has any experience of organising one.

What is perhaps more worrying is that many alumni don’t know that an election is even there in the first place. Information regarding the election is documented on just one page of the University website. Business Weekly’s research suggests that few of the eligible electorate recognise the importance of this particular vote or even know how or where to vote.

Unsurprisingly, most undergraduates (ineligible to vote) have no idea what the Chancellor does and are frankly disinterested in the whole affair.

The fact that the result is a lottery then should be a major worry to the university. This is arguably the highest seat in academia in Britain for which the election has become a bit of a joke.

One thing that should come from this episode is electoral reform. It should not be a position where a small select committee chooses an appropriate candidate - it should always be a contested vote.