What's in a party name?
A striking aspect of George Osborne's speech yesterday is how often he used the term "Modern Conservatives", and used it as a means of showing the modernised Cameron party is much more compassionate and inclusive than Conservative Party of Margaret Thatcher and others.
It reminded me of the way Tony Blair and Gordon Brown started calling their party "New Labour" in the mid-90s, with much the same purpose.
Mr Osborne used the term with great effect, I felt.
Indeed the thought occurred to me - is the phrase being tested? And might "Modern Conservatives" be slowly adopted as the party's unofficial title in the run-up to the election?
I'm Michael Crick, and I'm Newsnight's political editor. My guiding rule is that in any story there's usually something the politicians would prefer the world not to know. My job is to find that out. Follow me on
Comment number 1.
At 7th Oct 2009, stanilic wrote:You have had another bath, haven't you Michael.
I think Disraeli defined a political Conservative rather well; namely, someone who changes what is old and bad, whilst keeping what is old and good.
I think this covers the defintion of `modern' as well.
I prefer it when a political party does what is said on the side ot its tin. Would that Labour had the same loyalty to the Sale of Goods Act?
Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
At 7th Oct 2009, barriesingleton wrote:SPOIL PARTY GAMES - NEW OR MODERN THEY ARE STILL JUST GAMES
"What's in a party name" aye there's the rub. Parties are virtual entities - they have no heart and no morality - they exist to endure, and to gain-and-hold power. They are an umbrella for individuals who need to belong, and to have a label. In return for allegiance, the party frees its ciphers from any guilt or shame for lies told and stunts pulled - they are 'only obeying orders'.
What's in a CHANGED party name? Well - if you are known as a cheat, you don't get asked to play. So you change your name, and some surface spots, and get back in that way.
A party name means nothing, since they all design their credo to go where the votes are. Westminster is where the game is, and while they go on playing for fun, the teams might just as well be picked as they go in. After all, there are so many failed lawyers and disingenuous chancers in there, people who can argue any case either way (with a few directions to spare) governance will always be by default - and faulty.
If you find that sweeping and unjustified, read the Mullin diaries and get back to me.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 2)
Comment number 3.
At 7th Oct 2009, JunkkMale wrote:Name calling. New York, New York, so good they named it (after another place) twice. New Seekers. Modern Romantics. Old news.
Personally, I find it all a bit silly if, as one in the design game, a nifty way to score some extra dosh from the consequences of any rebranding exercise. Bet a few local printers waiting with glee to reprint all those local party posters.
As well articulated already, most can see beyond the sticker, and deeds, not words, are what resonate.
To be sure that is less of a problem for the Conservatives as they have 12 years of 'not us guv' to fade memories.
But as Nu Labour showed, most bolt-ons soon rather lent themselves to rather unfortunate adaptations, though I am sure Mr. Mugabe was happy with the association.
As the party has not made anything of it, and left such currently nebulous distractions to others to gnaw upon, I rather hope that, in the run up to the election, we are treated to more substantive fare. And it gets reported upon accordingly.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 3)