This is the first time that the SU elections have taken place entirely onlineLucas Maddalena

Live Text

(Refreshes automatically)

Join Varsity in following the main events of the Cambridge Student Union 2021 Election Hustings

  • You can join the event via Zoom here
  • A reminder of what's new about this election, taking place online for the first time, can found here
  • More information about the candidates is available here


That brings us to the end of the coverage, with voting planned to open on Monday (01/03) at 9am.

Thank you for joining Varsity for our coverage of this year's hustings.


Continuing the discussion about the SU’s response to the pandemic:

Amy believes that students have been treated very badly in the last year, which she has seen in her role as president of Class Act last year, and they think the SU needs to be reminded of its scope to support students. They also say that students were not consulted in many open letters and campaigns carried out by the SU. 

Ciara thinks that the issues are wider than “not listening”, and gives the example of moving all teaching online as proof of the SU’s lack of consultation of students. They feel it is a “failure to understand what students want”, and think that this attitude is “horrific”.


Another question is asked: “What issues, if any, do you think there have been with the SU’s response to Covid-19?”

Zak says he has sympathy for the current SU because it has been hard to gauge student opinion when everyone is spread around. He says that moving term online caused “hurt and upset”. Zak would prioritise consultation with students and creating a fair stance based on that. This consultation could include open meetings, polls and using social media to creatively engage with students. 

Allison feels the SU is caught between voicing student concerns and acting within the guidelines. She feels it was fair of the SU to ask the University to consider international and disabled students’ concerns regarding in-person teaching, and wants to prioritise student well-being.


Responding to the question about clubs: 

Allison can “sympathise” because she feels students rely on nights out due to “distressing” workloads. She also wants to recognise that victims and survivors can feel uncomfortable on nights out, as well as club spaces being inaccessible for disabled students.

Amy says that there is scope to turn the SU lounge into a new social space, now that Cindies and Fez have closed down, although there is uncertainty about when we will be allowed close together again. 


The candidates are asked about clubs in Cambridge: “Will you try and start an SU bar to fill the gap left by Cindies and Fez?”

Ciara feels this is “not one of the main issues” for the SU, but appreciates that the loss of nightclubs is a concern for students and wants the SU to work to provide some kind of social space for students to enjoy a night out.

Zak says he’s embarrassed to say that he was “devastated” when he heard about Cindies closing. He says he would be interested in finding something to fill the gap.


The candidates continue discussing the role of the SU in the day-to-day functioning of JCRs and MCRs, and how it can be made more successful.

Zak believes that one of the key roles of the SU is connecting up the disparate governing bodies that represent students. According to Zak, these bodies will have the most accurate on-the-ground knowledge of what students are experiencing. He also thinks that there is a need for a broader consultation of students who are not involved in student politics. 

Allison believes that liberation campaigns are often left out of consideration and the SU should be providing women’s officers and LGBT officers with information on the standing of their college in relation to others. Resources and materials should also be provided by them. The importance of communication was also emphasised by Allison.


The second question asks about the role of the SU in the day-to-day functioning of JCRs and MCRs, and how this can be made more successful.

Amy says that existing communication channels are not always effective between the SU and individual JCRs and MCRs, and active effort needs to be made to bring the two together. They also think that more standardisation between colleges should take place so that such drastic discrepancies between them do not take place on issues like rent and the covid response. 

Ciara thinks that the SU has a “fundamental misunderstanding” of how JCRs work, and thinks that their efforts should be focused on working with their colleges rather than against them. They believe that the SU should stop producing “aggressive” letters to the University, and would benefit from consulting JCRs before they are published.


Answering question about “extortionate rent”:

Ciara agrees that rent is a major issue and all students should be consulted before the SU decides to take action, and the issue was not necessarily being tackled in the right way due to the lack of consultation. 

Zak says that he would establish a fair rent campaign in the short term. In the longer term, he would engage in a much broader consultation with students to assess colleges where rent issues are less apparent. In the short term, we have the rent infrastructure that we do and Zak believes that it’s vital that we address disparities.


The first question asks: How will you tackle the issue of extortionate rents?

Allison says that extortionate rent is not something new to her. She says students are saying that rent is harming their wellbeing, but that the University is pushing students into unsafe environments during breaks and vacations. 

Amy feels that students are treated as a homogeneous group, which is untrue, and wants the University to address the fact that many people require housing over breaks. They think the current system is “damaging”.


The last two candidates proceed to introduce themselves.

Amy Bottomley has held several roles in campaigns, and has founded undergraduate reps for different campaigns including the St. John’s sustainability campaign, through which they have learned the value of community. “All students should feel represented by their student representatives”, they say. 

Ciara Aberdeen feels the University prioritises its own aims over the concerns of students, and thinks that the SU doesn't place appropriate pressure on the University. They think this requires a “direct culture shift” which needs to be brought about by new student members.


The first two candidates introduce themselves.

Zak Coleman wants to utilise the SU’s role as a representative body, and hopes to consult the other officers on major decisions. He aims to tackle issues of discrimination and hopes to provide madatory implicit bias training for staff. He also wants to make Cambridge a world leader in climate action.

Allison O’Malley Graham believes in a more caring, equal and supportive University. She believes that right now student support is not built into the University. She argues that supporting students is about funding and staffing the UCS and DRC. She wants to make students feel that Cambridge is a place where they can safely belong.


Finally, we will move onto the candidates for Undergraduate President. The candidates are: Allison O’Malley Graham, Amy Bottomley, Ciara Aberdeen and Zak Coleman.


The final question is posed to candidates: “How do you plan on tackling BIPOC representation among PhDs?”

Anjum feels that this is a significant issue, and one she hopes to work with the BME officer on. She felt that multi-faith prayer rooms at her last university were very important, and thinks there is a lot of work to be done on increasing their provision at Cambridge.

Jenny feels that important issues include access and representation. There is a movement to get funding bodies to be more transparent, which she says that the SU should support. She also says that work needs to be done to recruit more PhD students from minority backgrounds to address the root of the problem.


The candidates have now been asked about support for postgraduate students with families.

Jenny feels postgraduate students with families are often overlooked, especially during the pandemic, and the University and its colleges should consult students to help solve their issues relating to childcare.

Anjam says that she empathises with this question since she works in a nursery outside of term. Working with officers in other roles in the SU, like the Part-time and Double Time role, she says, is essential.


Another question is posed to the candidates: “How would you account for your role in holding the University to account in the community locally and globally?”

Anjum takes issue with the fact that Barclays, for example, is allowed at careers fairs, and that other companies, which are criticised for their environmental and ethical issues, remain linked to Cambridge. For the sake of the University’s reputation these corporate links need to be cut now, she says. She also says Cambridge must be perceived as a global leader. 

Jenny thinks that the first step before holding the University to account is establishing what its role in the wider world should be. She wants to focus on Environmental and Social Governance (ESG). The University’s out-facing position means it should take public stances on social justice issues, but should take guidance from its students first.


The fourth question asks: “Are those completing PhDs workers or students?”

Jenny believes that PhD students are workers, and have a very different student life to undergraduates and MPhil students, which she thinks has different implications for them, especially during the pandemic. However, she says that there is still a student life for PhDs.

Anjum agrees with Jenny that PhD students are both students and workers and an anti-casualisation campaign needs to be taken up. Workers, she says, are facing precarious conditions post-pandemic.


The next question asks the candidates about the University’s plans to significantly increase the number of postgraduate taught students, and asks what the candidates think the SU’s response to this should be.

Anjum says that improvements need to be made so rent and housing is more accessible to all students. Bars should also receive extra funding since it’s what students will be “craving” after the pandemic. 

Jenny thinks this question reflects the makeup of the University, with just under half of the student body being postgraduates. More postgraduates would create a “shift in dynamic” which needs to be addressed, and she thinks it will have different implications for taught and research students, especially regarding lab space and class size.


The second question asks: “CUSU and the GU merged on the promise of improving postgrad engagement. How do you think this is going and which steps would you take to improve postgrad representation in the future?”

Jenny believes that postgraduate engagement can be improved by the continuation of MCR forums, and having social events which can engage students in open discussion about issues they are facing.

Anjum feels that postgraduate students would like to get involved with activities and campaigns, and wants to develop resources for MCRs. She adds that the postgraduate community is focused on issues such as the rent strike, which she hopes will be recognised.


The first question asks candidates about how they plan to represent both taught and research students.

Anjum believes that not enough has been done in terms of gauging what will work for all postgraduate students, due to differences in the subjects being studied. Surveying needs to be done, she says, to fully understand what would work for students. 

Jenny thinks that students’ experience of Cambridge is very different depending on whether they are on a taught or research course. She wants both groups to be better represented through having one-to-one conversations with MCRs to discuss the issues they are facing.


The candidates introduce themselves.

Jenny is currently running a platform on policies to address the pandemic, housing, and welfare. She is co-chair of the Sustainable Shelter Resource Group and she is running to represent postgrads on issues impacting welfare and to lobby for funding extensions. 

Anjum believes that funding, rent, and mental health are major issues which need to be addressed, but also wants to improve the social justice aspects of the SU, which she feels the University should be committed to. She wants to utilise social media to encourage students to get involved with the SU.


The postgraduate President candidates will now be asked questions. These candidates are: Anjum Naha, Jenny Ward George and Liam Webb. Liam is not attending due to personal commitments but will still be campaigning.


Can you discuss a specific policy you want to implement to address the homelessness crisis in the Cambridge community?

Ben is “really keen” to utilise existing networks and work closely with groups to challenge homelessness in Cambridge, especially its gendered impacts, which is something they highlight that WomCam has also been working on. 

Ewan believes that the University has been responsible for introducing hostile architecture that makes it difficult for homeless people to live. He says this should be addressed.


Content Notice: Brief mention of sexual violence, mental health and eating disorders

The next question is posed to candidates: “On the topic of students with a burden of care, what is one key policy or aim you have to address this as the pandemic continues and the situation evolves?”

Ewan sees increasing support for colleges and counselling services as crucial to removing the burden of care from students.

Ben believes that the burden of care should not fall to students and speicific services need to be introduced for survivors of sexual violence and eating disorders for example to help deal with the “mass trauma” that students have experienced during the pandemic.


"What distinguishes you from the other candidate to run for this role?"

Ben wants to focus on listening to student voices, and sees representation work as a two-way process, listening carefully to students and involving them in the decision-making process.

Ewan has experience supporting campaigns around student solidarity, workloads, liberation and grassroots campaigns.


"Why does your experience make you the right person to be the WCO?"

Ewan believes that his experience on campaigns enacting structural change will help him address welfare issues at Cambridge, such as staff/student solidarity. He also has experience on JCR committees in representative roles.

Ben has experience within liberation campaigns and works closely with JCRs and MCRS. They are also a member of the WomCam committee and the Consent Collective and have been involved in the rent strike.


The second question asks about the meaning of the community aspect of the role for the candidates.

Ben thinks community is something the pandemic has damaged, causing isolation and exacerbating issues caused by student workload. They also feel that staff-student solidarity is a major aspect of this, and wants to emphasise that community also includes the wider Cambridge community and its issues, such as homelessness.

Ewan believes that the University is increasingly run by senior management who make decisions which negatively impact students. He believes student strikes, campaigns, and supporting students are a key way to help the Cambridge community. He also believes that the town/gown divide needs to be bridged since the University is causing inequality despite its vast wealth.


Content Notice: Bereavement 

The first question is posed to the candidates: “You both aim to prioritise welfare funding. Where would you allocate that funding?”

Ewan thinks that support within the University is complicated by disparities between colleges, and wants to increase funding for the Disability Resource Centre (DRC). He wants to use established groups to allocate funding appropriately.

Ben aims to increase funding for the DRC and counselling services - the “first aid to student welfare concerns” - in light of the ordeal students are facing during the pandemic, such as bereavement, referring to it as their “priority policy.”


The candidates start by introducing themselves.

Ben is running for the role because they believe that welfare in Cambridge is “in crisis”, and that the pandemic has exacerbated these issues. They want to improve housing rights and workers’ rights. They also want to tackle excessive workloads and work with liberation campaigns, and they think that liberation must extend beyond the Cambridge bubble. 

Ewan feels Covid-19 has exposed weaknesses but also shown the power of collective action. He hopes to improve student welfare and promote alternative learning methods, as well as reducing workload and promoting liberation campaigns. He wants to centre justice and community work, by breaching the town/gown divide, and committing to housing for all students.


We're back after the break and the Welfare and Community officer candidates, Ben Dalitz and Ewan Hawkings, are present. 

Ewan is a member of the Varsity investigations team but has been removed from all channels of communication at Varsity for the duration of the campaign. 


There is now a short break, which will continue until 20:05. We will then hear from the candidates for Welfare & Community Officer, and both the Postgraduate and Undergraduate President. 


The final question asks about the candidates' view on the University statement on freedom of speech.

Charli feels the statement on free speech lacks substance, and she wants to speak to the people who are directly affected by it. The University is sticking to Prevent guidelines which she feels are problematic. She sees arguments around freedom of speech as containing “fairly deliberate misunderstanding”.

Freddie thinks that freedom of speech is “not really an issue” at the University. However, the Statement on Freedom of Speech does not say very much, he says. However, the Statement on Freedom of Speech does not say very much, he says.


Content Notice: Sexual abuse

One student asks Freddie: "Your manifesto last year contained a lot on victims of sexual abuse, but this year data is not mentioned? Have all the issues been fixed?"

Freddie answers that his manifesto last year was focused on sexual assault survivors, but he has altered his manifesto this year because in his term as councillor he has realised that his ability to bring these issues to the table is limited. To centre survivors’ voices he wants to be in the room where these decisions are being made, but notes that it’s a difficult issue for the councillor to make change on.

Charli thinks that the University should work on centering survivor’s voices. There are systemic and cultural issues within the University which she says should be addressed.


The fourth question asks about students’ ability to engage with the university councillor.

Charli wants to add a section to the SU bulletins for students to engage with the SU, and also hopes to work alongside other officers such as the BME and Disabled Students’ Officers. She aims to work through social media as well as JCR committees.

Freddie thinks that the main issue with engagement in the Council is that people don’t understand it or know how it works. He wants to make it as accessible as possible, and adding more formality to the role would not be effective, and believes it should remain independent from the SU.


The third question is asked: “What will you specifically be doing in terms of decolonisation?” 

Freddie hopes to take students’ input seriously, and wants faculties to have the power to make decisions alongside students. The University also needs to be willing to support staff as they adjust the curriculum.

Charli, disagreeing with Freddie, believes that the central university needs to take on a more direct role in decolonisation. Decolonising reading lists is not enough, although it is a good place to start.


The next question is posed to the candidates: “What will you be doing in terms of student mental health?”

Charli places student mental health at the top of her agenda. She says the disciplinary procedure is “frankly traumatising” and wants colleges to be held to an equal standard. She hopes to increase DRC funding and employ more staff.

Freddie thinks that discrepancies between colleges are vast, and he aims to work on changing this. The DRC, he says, should receive more funding, and more staff need to be hired.


The candidates are asked about divestment and why they think it is preferable to putting pressure on companies to move away from fossil fuels.

Freddie thinks that the University’s plans for divestment are effective, with planned investment in renewable energy and a carbon-neutral portfolio by 2030. He was “really impressed” by the plan and hopes to continue its implementation.

Charli thinks that companies like BP are stubborn and believes the University would be limited in its attempts to convince them to move away from fossil fuels. 


The candidates introduce themselves.

Hendy wants to support the current SU President, Ben Margolis, in his move towards a new term structure, with a reading week, and wants to put decolonisation on the University’s agenda. She also hopes for DRC funding and disciplinary reform.

Poser, who held the role last year, says it has been a privilege to have held it. He thinks the difference between colleges in terms of its Covid-19 response has been vast, and wants to work to make this more equal.


We now move onto the candidates for University Councillor: Charli Hendy, Freddie Poser and Peter Johnathan Lucas. Poser is also University Councillor for this academic year. Peter is also running for DSO but was not present.


How will you improve education for students from marginalised groups in Cambridge? How can we make the curriculum more inclusive?

Zaynab thinks that it is important to ensure all staff are trained to properly support their students. She also thinks it’s important to work with the BME campaign in its aim to decolonise the curriculum. 

Alex wants to bridge the gap between academic representatives and campaign members, as well as pushing for decolonisation.


The next question asks: “What do you take for the participation remit of your role apart from access and education?”

Alex aims to make participation more equal in student societies, when it comes to class disparities. He says buddying systems could help this. 

Zaynab sees participation as requiring student involvement, especially for ensuring current students feel able to get involved in access. From a prospective student point of view, she wants them to be involved with access events.


The next question addresses criticism of the SU for not representing students’ interests and emphasis on open letters, asking: “how do you plan to earn these students' trust back?”

Zaynab states that forums are important in order to work with students on a broader level. She says open meetings can help increase interaction between students when discussing these issues. She will also use her social media to reach out to students. 

Alex feels that open letters are a means to an end and that consulting students is the most important way to present a unified voice. He wants to reach out to JCRs and maintain regular contact.


The next question asks about improvements to the shadowing scheme.

Zaynab thinks the long-term effects of the shadowing scheme have been really beneficial, and although it has been effective online she hopes the residential aspect will be able to continue.

Alex believes that it is important to have a longer term virtual component when it comes to the scheme, which could improve it. 


The third question is asked: “How do you plan on improving the educational experience of students at the university?”

Alex thinks that improving the educational experience of students at university is a participation issue, and that making sure people from different backgrounds have the same levels of engagement is key. He hopes to achieve this through peer support, as well as by working with the University.

Zaynab believes that students are facing issues with their learning, and thinks supervisors need to be better informed on student needs. She is keen to work with the DSC to make support more standardised.


The candidates are asked about the main access and education issues that the pandemic has caused, and how they will be tackled by the two candidates. 

Zaynab thinks that a lot of students from disadvantaged backgrounds don’t have access to resources which allow them to research universities, but thinks that online access can negate barriers such as travel costs for visiting and learning about universities.

Alex thinks pre-admission problems include students receiving a poor quality of education, which leads to low ambition regarding university application. He also feels that universities disregard people from working class backgrounds, which limits them post-admission, and limited study space may also cause issues.


The first question is posed to candidates: "What, in your opinion, is the purpose of access work?"

Alex feels that the main purpose of access work is looking at both pre- and post-admissions issues, but says there is “still some way to go”. He thinks that access should level the playing field between pre- and post-admissions and work with specific groups.

Zaynab feels that outreach is important since it puts Cambridge on the map for students who may not consider it as an option, due to cultural and financial barriers.


The candidates introduce themselves and their policies.

Zaynab feels that the pandemic has highlighted many access issues. She feels that there are benefits to online learning and also hopes to conduct access events through online platforms in order to reach more people. She would push for more flexibility with exams and assessments to deal with different situations, and feels that lots of different groups need to be targeted with access.

Alex has been involved in access and participation work since he came to Cambridge. He aims to increase access and the use of online software that uses captions. He is also looking to expand the shadowing scheme.


Next up are the Undergraduate AEP Officer candidates: Zaynab Ahmed and Alex Roberts.


On representing LGBTQ+ students, Amelia hopes to improve representation at the SU and feels someone is needed to represent LGBTQ+ students.


The third question is asked: What do you think are the key issues for widening participation at the postgraduate level and what would you do to put this on the agenda?

Amelia hopes that scrapping application fees will allow a wider pool of people to apply, especially because means-testing for fee waivers are limited. She will also “demand communication and clarity” for students who struggle to establish how exams and classes work. 


The next question: "How will you ensure you represent both taught and research postgraduate students?"

Amelia wants to create a conversation between herself and postgraduate students, hoping to support both research and taught students.


The first question addresses the adverse effects of the pandemic on PhD students.

Amelia says that the financial issues caused by Covid are significant. A motion has been passed by the SU Council to provide funding for fourth-year PhD students, and she wants to look into postgraduates who undertake teaching work receiving better support from the University, such as through the postgraduate access group.


The only candidate for Postgraduate AEP officer is Amelia Jabry. 

She first introduces herself. Amelia aims to scrap application fees and create clearer signposting to funding, especially for final-year PhD students. She also wants departments to publish clear exam and class schedules.


After a short break, we will start again at 18:50 with the Access, Education and Participation Officer candidates, starting with the Postgraduate Officer.


The final question asks about universal lecture recordings.

Anna says that they have been advocating recording lectures for a long time due to personal experience when they were unable to attend lectures in person.

Robin emphasises that the old system of asking students to sign a waiver is wrong as students are not “homogenous blocks.”


The next question asks about how candidates would go about lobbying proposals to the University. 

Robin says that he would advocate both emotional and pragmatic appeals to the University, and that disabled students are legally entitled to adjustments which the University needs to be reminded of. He says the current system doesn’t work - accessibility helps everyone and trying to save in the short term is ineffective.

Anna says that being a wheelchair user has made them very determined, because people say ‘no’ to them all the time about various things and that they will not accept that. Anna says that they have been to parliament to talk about disabled student needs.


The next question asks: "What is the most important aspect of the university’s view on disability and disability support that needs to change?"

Anna says that every time disabled students have a problem they have to go to the Disabilities Resource Centre (DRC) and get case by case assistance but this is inefficient.

Robin states that he thinks that there needs to be better resources to decrease staff workload.


The third question asks about candidates' experience representing different groups of questions.

Anna says that they came to university not knowing they were disabled, and believes that being a wheelchair user changes your perspective. They are now the trans officer and have also successfully introduced the first accessible social space in their college. 

Robin has been LGBT officer and Secretary in his college JCR and says he’s trying to push LGBT inclusion. In the JCR he also oversaw the introduction of a DSO role.


The second question addresses collaboration between the DSC (Disabled Students' Campaign), colleges and DSOs. 

Anna says that this year there hasn’t been a lot of engagement in terms of events. They want to try and strengthen that network whether it be through Facebook or through collaborating with JCRs.

Robin believes that the relationship between College Disabled Students’ Officers (DSOs) is very important. He also says that they “can be better at fire-spotting and picking up on problems.” He also suggests the running of an LGBT+ parenting scheme for small colleges to encourage cross-college friendships.  


The first question addresses the fostering of community among disabled students.

Robin says it has been difficult to get social events to continue for JCRs and MCRs running events during the pandemic. He says the SU needs to make a concerted effort to support social events and campaigns and to get involved through the freshers’ fair.

Anna says that everyone has “Zoom fatigue.” They highlight that it is important to see what students really want. They add that they would like to introduce a penpal scheme for disabled students.


Anna and Robin introduce themselves: Anna emphasised that they were involved in access "by necessity" and wants disabled students to "truly thrive." 

Robin said that he is running for similar reasons and welcomes the flexibility of online exams and lectures, and does not want accessibility to be an afterthought.

Peter is currently not present at the Hustings.


Milo said that there is a great concern on reporting procedures. They said that we want to work on centralisation, a lot of the issues people are coming up against currently is that people handling complaints are not neutrally removed from the situation, so continuing centralisation is key. “Self-advocating” can be a very stressful process. He would establish termly or bi-termly meetings with Women’s Officers and femsocs to support this.


Next question asked is “if you could get one thing done this year what would it be?” Milo answers that there needs to be compulsory anti-racism and inclusion training in order to avoid harm coming to students.


Milo is asked about sexual misconduct on campus. 

They highlight the “great work on centralising reporting and disciplinary procedures.” He says that he wants refresher consent workshops in Lent term.


Milo Eyre Morgan is a third-year natural scientist at Newnham. 

They said their four key policies are work, safety, autonomy and intersectionality.


We're now moving onto the Womens' Officer candidate, Milo Eyre-Morgan.


The next question asks about increased hostility and racism to Chinese students during the pandemic.

She said that international students do tend to get left out when we talk about the SU, and highlighted her work with the rent strike. She says she would focus on the welfare aspect of it. She would make sure those students feel like they’re supported and that there’s the infrastructure in place, which feeds into the bigger issues at this University, which is that there’s not specialist anti-racist training and tailored support for dealing with racism. 


Tara is asked about tackling the invisibility of women of colour when it comes to internships and work applications.

She plans to working with ‘Fly’ - the University’s network for women and non-binary people of colour - and may look into events with them.


Tara says she is less keen on promoting access from the top down, and supports grassroots initiatives. She would like to support student-led programs and build on the previous work of the BME Officer too. She says there is a long way to go on improving access statistics.


The first question asks about her primary aim for the year. 

Tara says that updating the policy for racial harassment is the best way to improve people’s lives, and highlights the recent incident with a Trinity porter. She says that ensuring people know how to report racism and knowing who it will be dealt with will be at the top of her agenda.


We're now moving on to Tara Choudhury, who is running unopposed for BME officer.


Elliot is asked about the application process and the biggest issues faced by double-time students. 

Elliot says, “we need to...illuminate what the process is.” He adds that he would like to publicise Double Time to Tutors and pastoral staff.

Elliot highlights that there are big issues: one is that it is a long and taxing process and that there is a sense of having to prove yourself for applicants.


The first set of questions are for Elliot, who is the sole candidate for Double Time Officer. 


This evening, Varsity will be bringing you live coverage of the Cambridge SU election hustings. The event will be live-streamed on Zoom, and gives students an opportunity to hear from candidates and ask them questions. The hustings will start with the candidate for Double Time Officer at 17:30, while candidates for Postgraduate President and Undergraduate President will speak last.

Elections for most roles are contested, but there is only one candidate each for BME Officer, Women’s Officer, and Double Time Officer. There are no candidates for several non-sabbatical roles: Part-Time Students’ Officer, Families Officer, and Mature Students’ Officer.