When the University of Cambridge Left Society formed this summer, it issued a stinging rebuke of Cambridge’s oldest, and arguably most influential, student political club – its Labour Club. A post on its Instagram loudly proclaimed that “CULC’s [Cambridge University Labour Club’s] attachment to the Labour Party has led it to produce merely surface-level criticisms of a government that has maintained the stranglehold of neoliberalism and perpetuated global injustice”.
In the weeks preceding, Labour had taken a major beating from its student contingent – with two Labour clubs, Warwick and Newcastle, disaffiliating from the party. CULC, affiliated formally with Labour Students but not the central party, has not chosen to take such a stance.
At its first ‘Pints and Policy’ event of the term, turnout appeared unaffected, as left-leaning freshers flocked to Little St Mary’s to argue about wealth taxes and digital ID cards between sips of warm Carling. That same weekend, UCLS held the inaugural ‘Shots and Socialism’, its competitor to the famous alcohol-fuelled debate night. The home of Cambridge’s progressives and socialists for more than a century has met a real threat – with the vicious spat between the two societies resembling national trends of rapidly declining Labour support among the 16-24 age group.
“The home of Cambridge’s progressives and socialists for more than a century has met a real threat”
Louis Welavert, CULC’s Welfare Officer, who also described himself as involved in constituency-level party politics, was keen to emphasise the health of the society in the face of its emerging competitor. He denied “any particular problems with membership numbers or attendance and pints and policy” and emphasised “a lot of ongoing support for CULC even, and maybe especially, in the context of the foundation of UCLS.”
A few weeks before, I had met with the committee of the University of Cambridge Left Society (UCLS). Their critique of student politics was structural: Co-chairs Rares Coclinau and Aidain Clair explained their purpose as an effort to “transform indignation, which is what has been plaguing this country, into organisation […] into an actual material force that’s capable of challenging both the University and the wider systems of domination that it upholds.”
For them, student politics ought to resemble a programme for action, rather than an opportunity for debate and discussion. Claiming that “the existing institutions of student politics have long degenerated into these hollow vessels incapable of confronting the accumulating crises of our epoch,” the student politics big three – CULC, CULA and CUCA – offered little more than a “spectacle” of “political expression”.
Clair criticised “a nicer, kind of more mature way of politics” that he felt prevailed at Cambridge and saw “being more active in the community,” rather than simply offering a forum for discussion and “detached critique” as the goal of the new society. For Coclinau, this meant a more “militant” approach to student activism. They planned to volunteer at homeless charities and food banks. CULC too have added a volunteering element to their work in recent years, as student political societies are increasingly acknowledging that putting principles into action in the community is as important as discussing national politics.
“The existing institutions of student politics have long degenerated into these hollow vessels incapable of confronting the accumulating crises of our epoch”
For Welvaert, however, the opportunity for debate and discussion that CULC provided was one of its biggest strengths. “I think CULC is a very important venue for political discussion in Cambridge,” he told me, continuing “I think it remains true that pints and policy, and other CULC sessions, in person and online, are some of the most important forums, in Cambridge and beyond, to discuss [left-wing politics].”
However, he was sympathetic to young people unhappy with the party. “It goes without saying that the government’s response to the ongoing crisis in Gaza has been a disappointment, a real disappointment, and a lack of action on that front has been for many a standout disappointment – the standout disappointment.”
In August, Oxford’s Labour Club Chair Hattie Simpson spoke of a “revolt” over Gaza inside Labour’s youth wing, Young Labour and Labour Students. Society disaffiliations have been accompanied by a collapse in the party’s youth membership – from 100,000 to just 30,000.
Welvaert felt that within Labour “there is a risk of viewing dissent as treacherous,” blaming the party’s factional pendulum for silencing left-leaning voices as the government pursued stances on issues like immigration or benefits that were at odds with the beliefs of its student supporters. However, within CULC, he argued that there was “a lot of room to criticise when necessary.” He believed the fact that they “still have a lot of involvement with the parliamentary side politics” was a strength, rather than the weakness CULS claimed it to be, as it enabled politically engaged students to exercise influence over national politics.
“Society disaffiliations have been accompanied by a collapse in the party’s youth membership – from 100,000 to just 30,000”
Believing he could offer an alternative for disaffected Labour and Tory members, the Liberal Association (CULA) Chair Jack Peters was keen to speak to me. He said there was “a faction of people on the right or the left who are more moderately grounded in liberal values […] and who will come into the Liberal Democrats.”
Accusing CULC of being “factional” and “pigeonholed into the Labour Party,” he claimed that CULA, despite being the only political society formally affiliated to a national party, was capable of challenging aspects of Lib Dem policy. In fact, he, much like Welvaert, saw association with a major party as a strength, not a weakness. “I’m passionate about the fact that change comes through institutions,” he told me, and pointed to the Young Liberal motion in opposition to the Online Safety Act that was passed during the Lib Dem Conference against the party leadership as evidence.
The traditional parties are not just losing the youth vote to Your Party and the Greens. There has also been an observed rise in young people choosing Reform in opinion polls. While the 16-25 age groups remains predominantly left-wing, new research has shown a potential block of young men for which Reform has a significant appeal.
I was interested, therefore, to find a mixture of ambivalence and disdain for Reform at a CULA event held the following weekend. The recently unseated, and recently knighted, Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg had come to address the society under the backdrop of a party suffering somewhat of a wilderness period after one of its worst electoral performances in history. The question on everyone’s lips was whether young Conservatives should look to work with Reform, or stay loyal to the Tories, who trail Reform by almost ten points in opinion polls.
“I was interested, therefore, to find a mixture of ambivalence and disdain for Reform at a CULA event held the following weekend”
Rees-Mogg told the audience that between the Tories and Reform lay a “broad conservative family,” whose support could be harnessed for the sort of right-wing mandate the CUCA committee probably dreamed of. The prospect of working with Reform, however, troubled a lot of the people I spoke to, with one student telling me that “we don’t really know what their [Reform’s] ideals are, they have flip-flopped on many policies.”
When pressed on why he thought fellow right-leaning young men were turning to Reform, another student said “I can understand it,” explaining “take applying for internships, the amount of ones where it will be only people of colour, or only women is ridiculous, and it is the same with scholarships .”
Another student, Will, said he had little confidence in Reform, asking “who’s going to be the Chancellor, who’s going to be the Home Secretary?” “I would rather stick with what I think is logical, rather than reactionary,” he said.
It appeared Cambridge’s right had not been won over by Reform, and CUCA remained an important institution to many of them. Another student, Rahul, explained “It [CUCA] is quite a good thing for people who have more right-leaning views to converse, it’s not actually affiliated here with the Conservative Party, it’s a place where people with similar views, or even different views, can come and debate these sorts of issues,” echoing the arguments CULC members had made to me the previous week.
What was most striking was the fact that, at Cambridge, the major parties appear healthier than elsewhere – it lacks a Reform Society, and its Labour Club, for the time being, is yet to denounce the Labour Party, as many others have done.
It seemed hard, therefore, to completely buy into Clair’s argument that “the existing institutions of student politics have long degenerated into these hollow vessels incapable of confronting the accumulating crises of our epoch.” For the time being, CULC, CULA, and CUCA are set to remain important forces on the student political scene. The presence of UCLS is perhaps symptomatic of a wider trend, as students at Cambridge, just like the rest of the country, are increasingly losing faith in the traditional parties as vehicles for engaging in politics.
