Gordon Campbell refuses change the name of his party saying that he’s already cut himself off from the Ottawa herd and heads a made in B.C. Party which would never kow-tow to the Chretien crew. He claims he’s already mopping up Reform Party and Progressive Democratic Alliance support, so why change? Moreover Bill Bennett told him not to change the name.

But from what I hear, he hasn’t cut himself off from the big boys at all - the same old gang still has his ear – and his bankbook. What effect he is having on Reform and PDA support is hard to say but what is certain is that any defectors are seeking a flag of convenience and if the going gets tough – which it will – they’ll be out of there in a hurry. And if Bill Bennett told Gordon Campbell that he shouldn’t change the name the former premier’s been away from politics too long. For it was Bill Bennett himself who, at the 1974 Socred Convention, permitted a name change motion to be debated and he was father of the name change which did take place - from the Social Credit League to the British Columbia Social Credit Party.

But I thought to myself, what’s in a name anyway?

How about the Radical Socialist Party in France, a major player in French politics for eons?

It’s neither radical nor socialist so the name is meaningless. Perfect

The Labour Party is scarcely a "labour" party any more having cut the purse strings and the political strings from the union movement in the early 90s under Neil Kinnock and John Smith. Tony Blair, while not changing the name formally, calls the party "New Labour" implementing the best advice anyone could give a party about a name – have it mean as little as possible and be unassociated with any identifiable group.

The Democrats and Republicans used to be the other way around until Lincoln’s time and clearly no one would argue that either party was more "democratic" or "republican" than the other. In fact not so long ago when the Northern Democrats and the Southern Democrats were unalike as chalk and cheese. Now Southern Republicans like Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms scarcely look like the Republican liberals of the North and much more resemble the old Southern Democrats they replaced – and once were.

The Progressive Conservative Party, an oxymoron if there ever was one, was a 1940s amalgam of the Western Progressives with the Eastern Conservatives under Manitoban John Bracken who got about as close to 24 Sussex Drive as Gordon Wilson will get to the Premier’s office. In the result, the party got the worst of both worlds – the descendants of the Ontario "blue" with the radical farmers of the Prairies under a name which, far from being inoffensive, raised hackles everywhere.

The lesson of successful parties is simple - pick a name which could include almost anyone and which will never offend by reason of its name alone. A party is bound to offend people by past policies but when the voter goes into that booth you don’t want them even thinking of your party name. (The federal Liberals are the great exception – their secret is that Central Canada traditionally hates the other guys more,)

Look at how the Social Credit League won in 1952. For many years a government under the same name, leaving aside some nasty excesses of Bible Bill Aberhart, had given good government in Alberta. More importantly, everyone who didn’t like the CCF (forerunners of the NDP) loathed the Conservatives and the Liberals. So why not take a chance on maverick W.A.C. Bennett and his "funny money" crew. The name Social Credit passed both tests – it excluded no one and didn’t conjure up irrelevant nasties.

In 1961 the NDP left wing coalition was formed and given a great name easily meeting both tests – at first blush. It wouldn’t long be new, it wasn’t especially democratic and was more a coalition than a party. Perfect. Except for one thing – while its name gave broad appeal, and didn’t annoy anyone its structure made it beholden both for money and policy to the Trade Union Movement. That cost them too many votes including non union workers. In contrast, by thrusting aside union domination and adding the word "new" to the description of their party, the British Labour Party made itself look friendly to all but billionaires and even a few of them.

The B.C. Liberal party breaks both rules. It is seen by many as the old Liberal Party of the middle left and, by word association, a junior partner to the Chretien bunch.

So what’s in a name?

The difference between victory and second prize in a close election.

And what should Mr Campbell do?

Phone Graham Lea, former NDP cabinet minister who crossed the floor to start his own party and see if the name "Unity Party" is available.

How the hell could anyone get mad at that name?