Name change for the BC Liberals does not change much else
Should the “BC United” moniker stick, the party will be switching aesthetics while staying largely the same
Names are more than an identifier, at times they act as a signifier. Giving the right name serves as a shorthand to whatever are the main purposes an organization serves. Most names stand for their driving principles, are made unambiguous, and people can walk away with a rough idea of what is in store. When you hear names such as the World Health Organization, La Presse, or Surrey Libraries, that is all you need to get the gist of it. Plain and simple.
However, this is not always the case. Just as equally, names can be used to obfuscate intentions. True purposes are shrouded in ways that make construing a group’s beliefs and worldviews difficult without closer observation.
For example, Vancouver’s Non-Partisan Association was founded with the stated intent of only endorsing candidate slates who would not bring partisan politics into City Hall, hence the neutral name choice. Aside from the absurdity of the concept of non-political politicians, the name was nonsense — the NPA was a very partisan creation to oppose local socialism.
Today, we are seeing something similar with the BC Liberals. Following a three-months-long consultation process, the party is strongly considering renaming itself by the end of this year with “BC United” as the top choice.
The rationale behind the name change is to disassociate from the federal Liberal Party of Canada. The federal party is staunchly centrist, whilst the provincial one is moderately conservative. The two were once linked until ex-leader Gordon Wilson severed ties in 1987. With the fall of the Social Credit Party in 1991, the BC Liberals filled the centre-right void and has stood as the main opposition force to – or the force to be opposed by – the BC NDP.
Party leader Kevin Falcon has endorsed the move and the party itself calls the rebranding a “fresh alternative that expresses the party’s long-standing commitment to unity across a broad coalition of party members.” One, they hope, will stave off vote loss to the BC Conservative Party and simultaneously unite political liberals and conservatives against a common, left-leaning foe.
George Orwell wrote in his essay “Politics and the English Language” that “the great enemy of clear language is insincerity.” Political policy and discourse relies on euphemisms and sweet sounding language to mask realities.
Returning to Vancouver, many of the political slates running candidates for the upcoming municipal election use positive or unifying names such as TEAM, ABC, Progress, Forward, and so on, which sound nice but say nothing on the surface.
“BC United” does the same at a higher level. If you want to find out the core values of the party, prepare to look past the name, over the leader’s words (obfuscation and vagueness can be spoken too), perhaps beyond the party platform (when the manifesto fails to be straightforward, you’re in trouble), and look at actions and precedent.
The BC Liberals rebrand is just that, a rebranding. The label changing does not necessarily mean the product will too.
“United” carries a positive, all-encompassing connotation. Politically it could imply a big-tent party, but the provincial Liberals too narrowly defined for that. Rhetorically, Falcon does not seem to stand out as a political innovator. He has hit the typical notes of public safety, health care, and home affordability that B.C. politicians are won’t to address and some still remember the party’s past.
Unless a major internal shakeup occurs, “BC United” will be nothing more than a makeover. A coat of paint and wax over the same old internal mechanisms.
