Language is power in politics. So what slogans will fuel a People’s Vote?

There is a scene in Adam McKay’s fantastic new movie about Dick Cheney, Vice — justly rewarded yesterday with an Oscar nomination for Best Picture — in which Republican pollster Frank Luntz persuades a focus group that the estate tax on the wealthy is unjust by renaming it a “death tax”. The words “global warming” sound scary; “climate change”, it turns out, much less so.

The delighted Luntz turns to his political masters, watching through one-way glass, and gives them the thumbs-up. What he is saying is: we can sell absolutely anything if we get the language right.

At a London preview of the film last week, McKay revealed that he had bumped into the real-life Luntz at its US premiere. Far from objecting to the strong antipathy of Vice to Cheney and Republicans in general, the pollster was apparently thrilled by his depiction.

He asked McKay how he had found out about the gleeful thumbs-up – the answer being that the director had done his homework. Not sure what more to say, McKay pressed Luntz on the manipulation of political language: “That’s kind of f***ed up, man.” Luntz did not really dissent.

Words are not merely the vehicle for ideas: they are the very substance of modern politics, its essence rather than its gift wrapping.

As Luntz himself argues in his 2007 book, Words That Work: It’s Not What You Say, It’s What People Hear — “You can have the best message in the world, but the person on the receiving end will always understand it through the prism of his or her own emotions, preconceptions, prejudices, and pre-existing beliefs. It’s not enough to be correct or reasonable or even brilliant. The key to successful communication is to take the imaginative leap of stuffing yourself right into your listener’s shoes.”

That prophetic passage was written in the very first days of the modern digital revolution, long before targeted social media had fully weaponised the techniques first championed by Luntz.

One only has to think of Donald Trump’s “Make America Great Again” or Vote Leave’s “Take Back Control” to grasp how right he was. In the 2016 referendum, the Remain campaign offered a drab inventory of facts and statistics, while the Brexiteers — as was captured so well in James Graham’s recent dramatic film with Benedict Cumberbatch as Dominic Cummings — had slogans with real emotional resonance, designed to achieve maximum neural penetration in a way that Remain’s numbers never could.

Twelve years since he wrote it, Luntz’s catechism should be painted in huge letters on the wall of the People’s Vote campaign headquarters in Millbank. Because if — as is now, at least, conceivable — there is a fresh referendum on Brexit, the linguistic framing of the respective campaigns will be fundamental to their fortunes.

The obstacles to such a contest remain formidable. There is infighting within the campaign itself about the right moment to strike with parliamentary action. Jeremy Corbyn’s amendment calling for a Commons vote on a fresh referendum is a step forward, and the Labour leader deserves some credit for inching towards full embrace of the idea. But John McDonnell’s deeply confusing interview on Newsnight last night made clear how far the party still has to travel.

As I understand it, Labour would only back a referendum that included some sort of proposed deal with the EU on the ballot paper. But what would the other option be? “The status quo is Remain,” said the shadow chancellor, somewhat cryptically. I think we need swift elucidation.

A new plebiscite would also require primary legislation and — so far — there is no Commons majority for such a measure. Worst of all, the People’s Vote campaign too often allows itself to look like a restorationist cabal: the liberal elite demanding its job back. The movement is much more effective when it presents itself as a youthful, grassroots insurgency.

But let us say all these obstacles are overcome, wind-assisted by the failure of all other options (a plausible enough scenario, it seems to me). It is then that the problems really begin for those of us who want Britain to stay in the EU.

The new Leave campaign would face a much easier task than it did in 2016. Its message this time would be: don’t let the corrupt, outdated, analogue Establishment ignore the clear instruction you gave three years ago: “Tell Them Again”.

Its narrative would be one of elite betrayal, People versus Parliament, a final demand to the governing class before the populist bailiffs are sent in.

But what is Remain’s message this time round? For a start, it should be a matter of concern that some voters seem to think “no deal” means “no Brexit”. When the Coalition was in power, David Cameron’s team had to drop its “global race” theme because so many people thought it had something to do with ethnicity.

What message would perform better than “Stronger In” did in 2016? The advantage that the Remainers have this time is that the magical thinking of the Leave project is being exposed, and the intractability of the Brexit process is becoming clearer by the day.

So “Stop the Chaos” would be fair. But it would not begin to address the sense of disengagement, resentment and alienation that animated the vote for Leave three years ago. We were certainly sold a pup in 2016. But “You Were Sold a Pup, Folks” is scarcely a vote-winner.

The only message that will stand a chance is one that combines two quite distinct ideas: first, let’s call a halt to this disastrous project; and second, let’s transform the country. In other words: stay, for change. As puzzles go, it’s not obvious, is it? Answers on a postcard, please.