\n<\/p>\n
What\u2019s in a name? Potentially a lot, if you are launching a movement with ambitions \u201cto shape something truly transformative\u201d in British politics.<\/p>\n
That\u2019s the challenge facing Jeremy Corbyn and Zarah Sultana, the former Labour MPs who announced plans last month, if not in the most coordinated fashion, to launch a leftwing political party. More than 600,000 people have already signed up for updates on the new group, which will be called \u2026 what?<\/p>\n
\u201cThe members will get to choose,\u201d Sultana said earlier this week, as a consultation on the subject closed. It will not be called Your Party, however, despite having launched on a website with precisely that name. Her own preference is the Left Party, \u201cbecause that\u2019s what it says on the tin \u2026 We\u2019ll obviously put that to the members and we\u2019ll see what we get\u201d.<\/p>\n
The fact that so many have already signed up to a nameless project might suggest that what it is eventually called matters less than the involvement of Corbyn, the still totemic (to some) former Labour leader, and Sultana, an effective and savvy digital communicator.<\/p>\n
But, say political insiders, history shows how parties\u2019 fortunes can be shaped by the names they adopt, both good and bad. For every En Marche! (Forward!), the French centrist movement that propelled Emmanuel Macron to his country\u2019s presidency, there is a Canadian Conservative Reform Alliance party, launched in 2015 and inevitably known as CCRAP until its name was hastily re-jumbled.<\/p>\n
Or take the short-lived alliance of disaffected centrist Labour MPs and Tories that in 2019 called itself the Independent Group, then TIG, then Change UK before being forced by a branding dispute to settle on the Independent Group for Change. With even their own candidates dismissing their \u201cterrible name\u201d, they made little electoral impact and quickly folded.<\/p>\n
On the other hand, the body once known as the Brexit party now claims 29% opinion poll support, after rebranding in 2020 as Reform UK. In the party-naming fashion stakes, indeed, long strings of descriptors are out of vogue these days, while dynamic slogans or abstract verbs (Forza Italia! Propel! Aspire!) are very much in.<\/p>\n
\u201cI think what you call yourself is really important, it\u2019s one of the most profound calling cards of what you offer,\u201d says Rohan McWilliam, a professor of modern history at Anglia Ruskin University and director of its Labour History Research Unit.<\/p>\n
He cites the example of Tony Blair\u2019s mid-90s rebrand of \u201cNew\u201d Labour, which he says the defeated Conservative party came to see as the single most important reason for the party\u2019s huge victory in 1997. \u201cTheir conclusion was they had been defeated because Labour used one word and one word alone, and that was \u2018New\u2019. Just that word alone spoke volumes.\u201d<\/p>\n
John McTernan, formerly a member of Blair\u2019s core Downing Street team and now a political strategist, agrees about the name\u2019s impact. \u201cThe important thing was that calling yourself New Labour created a category called old Labour. It created what you were against \u2013 and that\u2019s a very important thing in politics. That gave us the ability to have a clean break with the past, so we could say: \u2018No, no, that\u2019s old Labour.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n
skip past newsletter promotion<\/p>\n
Our morning email breaks down the key stories of the day, telling you what\u2019s happening and why it matters<\/p>\n
Privacy Notice: <\/strong>Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and content funded by outside parties. For more information see our Privacy Policy. We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.<\/span><\/p>\n after newsletter promotion<\/p>\n The Liberal Democrats had been through their own naming dilemmas almost a decade earlier, when the merger of the Liberal and Social Democratic parties in 1988 prompted a heated debate that was also settled by a vote by party members.<\/p>\n \u201cAt one period, election materials from us were appearing with Liberal Alliance, Social and Liberal Democrats and Liberal Democrats, all on different posters within a very short period of time,\u201d says the Lib Dem peer and former communications director Olly Grender. \u201cIt was very vexed at the time.\u201d<\/p>\n Ultimately, however, \u201cLiberal Democrats feels a very comfortable fit,\u201d she says. \u201cLiberalism is the absolute bedrock of our history and firmly underpins our current beliefs.\u201d<\/p>\n So where should Corbyn and Sultana land? Gareth Morgan, an executive director overseeing government relations at the brand consultancy Cavendish, urges clarity above all. \u201cI think it\u2019s always useful to have a name which conveys the purpose to people who check in with politics for 10 minutes each week, max. The best name is one where, just by reading it, I understand what you\u2019re for and what you\u2019re about.\u201d<\/p>\n Chris Bruni-Lowe, a campaigns strategist whose book Eight Words That Changed the World examines which political words resonate, says: \u201cA party name or slogan should be emotionally intelligible to everyday people, not just to political insiders. Words that sound elitist or academic are the least likely to work. New political parties often fail unless they define themselves clearly and simply.\u201d<\/p>\n Bruni-Lowe has advised parties across the political spectrum. \u201cThe most successful parties have a name and slogan that succeeded because it was immediately clear what it stood for,\u201d he says.<\/p>\n Over to you, Corbyn, Sultana \u2013 and your many thousands of supporters.<\/p>\n