The formation of a new political party often garners the public’s interest, particularly regarding its name. Jeremy Corbyn, a prominent figure in left-wing politics and former leader of the Labour Party, is currently spearheading the establishment of a fresh political organization with the help of fellow independent MP Zarah Sultana. As of now, the party remains unnamed, creating a sense of anticipation surrounding its branding and identity.
The desire for a distinct name for this new political entity has become a focal point of discussion. Corbyn has received significant public support, claiming that over 600,000 individuals have registered as supporters of the party, which emphasizes its potential grassroots appeal. Interestingly, the initial speculation that the party would be titled “Your Party”—reflecting the name of its sign-up website—was quickly refuted by Sultana. She has proposed alternatives, including titles like “The Left” or “The Left Party,” but the leaders aim to engage supporters in a dialogue to develop a fitting name for the organization.
This decision to crowdsource naming ideas encapsulates a broader debate about political identity and representation. However, before launching their candidates into elections, Corbyn and Sultana must navigate the regulatory landscape established by the Electoral Commission. This entails ensuring that the chosen name distinctly identifies the party and does not closely resemble existing parties—an endeavor that adds layers of complexity to the naming process.
The urgency for a name is underscored by the opinion of Sheffield University Professor Matthew Flinders, who articulates that the name of the party should reflect its core message succinctly. Flinders points out that many mainstream political parties in the UK have brands that have become obsolete or confusing to contemporary youth. He emphasizes that parties like Labour, Conservative, or Liberal Democrat have names that may not resonate with young voters, who might be more likely to react to branding that feels relevant and modern.
Laura Rogers, a creative director at AMV BBDO, highlights the significance of a strong brand in today’s digital landscape. She insists that an effective name should facilitate easy sharing across social platforms and have commercial viability, making it attractive for merchandise. On the contrary, selecting a poorly chosen name can lead to significant backlashes, as demonstrated by the Post Office’s ill-fated rebranding attempt to “Consignia.”
Furthermore, the role of modern communication, particularly social media, cannot be disregarded when developing a name. Journalist Ash Sarkar raises a critical point about ensuring that the first few letters of the proposed name do not inadvertently spell out inappropriate words. Such missteps could lead to ridicule and a loss of credibility for the nascent party. Sarkar likens the public naming notion to the infamous “Boaty McBoatface” incident, emphasizing the need for a more nuanced approach to naming.
On a strategic level, promoting a democratic naming process may also be a clever marketing tactic to foster a sense of ownership among supporters. Dominic Bailey, a branding strategist, acknowledges that while Corbyn’s approach aligns with his political ethos of inclusivity and democracy, the complexity of political branding often necessitates a stronger guiding hand to solidify the party’s identity.
Historically, the success or failure of nascent parties in the UK often hinges on the strategic definition and branding of their identities. Numerous new political parties emerge regularly, with many fading into obscurity shortly after inception. Notably, The Independent Group (TIG), which attempted to capitalize on the Brexit discourse, ultimately struggled to find a coherent identity, folding into obscurity after multiple name changes. Such cautionary tales remind the founders of the weight a name carries in establishing a party’s credibility and mission.
Further complicating matters, Corbyn’s approach allows for various naming suggestions, and Pamela Fitzpatrick’s recently registered party called “Arise” adds another contender into the mix. However, political consultant Chris Bruni-Lowe cautions against the use of vague or overly poetic names, suggesting that clear, strong names resonate better with voters and incite loyalty and recognition.
Despite the public curiosity surrounding the naming process, Sarkar emphasizes that the eventual title will not be the sole determinant of the party’s success. The political strategy and policies of this emerging party will be crucial in determining its viability and longevity. Corbyn himself has indicated that the party’s ultimate name will be finalized post a collective dialogue during the founding conference in the autumn. In the interim, the overwhelming support demonstrated by potential constituents illustrates that a name, while important, may not be as pivotal as the ideas and vision that this new party represents.
