"Short, punchy names replace lengthy descriptors in political party branding"

What’s in a Name? The Weight Behind Political Party Labels

The significance of a name can be immense, especially when launching a movement aiming to bring substantial change to British politics.

This is the task before Jeremy Corbyn and Zarah Sultana, former Labour MPs who recently revealed plans, albeit not entirely in sync, to establish a new left-leaning political faction. Over 600,000 people have already registered for updates on the yet-unnamed group.

“Members will decide the name,” Sultana stated this week as the consultation period ended. Despite launching on a website called “Your Party,” that will not be the final choice. Sultana leans toward “The Left Party,” describing it as straightforward—though the decision will rest with supporters.

The high early sign-up rate for a nameless initiative suggests Corbyn’s enduring influence among some factions and Sultana’s adept communication skills may matter more than the eventual title.

Political observers note that history reveals how a party’s name can shape its trajectory, for better or worse. Consider France’s En Marche! (Forward!), which drove Emmanuel Macron to the presidency, versus Canada’s ill-fated Conservative Reform Alliance Party, mocked as “CCRAP” until its swift rebranding.

Another cautionary tale is the 2019 alliance of disillusioned centrist Labour and Tory MPs, which cycled through names—first the Independent Group, then TIG, then Change UK—before settling on Independent Group for Change. Widely criticized for its weak branding, it quickly dissolved.

Conversely, the party formerly known as the Brexit Party now holds 29% in polls under its new name, Reform UK. Trends in political branding now favor punchy slogans or action-oriented terms (like Forza Italia! or Propel!) over lengthy, descriptive titles.

“A name is a crucial statement of identity,” says Rohan McWilliam, a modern history professor at Anglia Ruskin University. He points to Tony Blair’s rebranding Labour as “New Labour” in the 1990s—a move that Conservatives later credited as key to the party’s 1997 landslide. “That one word, ‘New,’ said everything.”

John McTernan, a former strategist for Blair, concurs: “By calling it New Labour, you instantly framed the alternative as ‘old Labour.’ That single word defined the contrast.”