Want to build the UK’s Silicon Valley? Stop calling it an Arc, call it a Flywheel.

In politics, business, and marketing, labels aren't just words - they're battlefields. The right name can inspire momentum, drive investment, and define a movement. The wrong one? Bureaucratic purgatory.

The "Oxford-Cambridge Arc" is a case study in branding gone wrong. The first take of the government-backed project was shelved by the Conservatives in 2022; the initiative was meant to create a high-growth innovation ‘corridor’ connecting two of the UK’s most productive cities. Instead, it stalled, burdened by planning failures, political hesitation, and a name that boxed it into an outdated framework.

Now in 2025, the Labour government are restarting the initiative without learning the lesson: labels matter. An "arc" sounds finite, a closed loop - something that begins and ends. ‘Roundabout’ is awful. A "corridor" is even worse: a dull, linear pass-through. Neither of these conjures the vision of a world-class innovation hub driving perpetual growth. If Britain wants to unlock its answer to Silicon Valley, it needs to reframe the conversation.

Don’t call it an Arc, call it a Flywheel.

The power of labels: framing, meaning, and momentum

Decades of research in cognitive science, political communication, and marketing confirm that labels shape perception. Framing theory suggests that the way information is presented alters public response. A term like "flywheel" activates a different mental model than "arc" - one of self-sustaining, exponential progress rather than a limited, pre-defined route.

Marketing research on cognitive shortcuts (or heuristics) shows that labels help people process complex ideas. "Flywheel" is dynamic - it suggests momentum, compound growth, and resilience. Jeff Bezos famously embedded the flywheel concept into Amazon’s strategy, emphasizing how one force (customer experience) drives another (traffic), which drives another (sellers), creating a perpetual cycle of expansion.

Now imagine applying that same framing to a national-scale innovation ecosystem. A "flywheel" isn’t a static geography - it’s a machine, compounding investments, talent density, and infrastructure into a long-term economic engine.

A corridor just gets you from A to B.

A flywheel builds something greater than the sum of its parts.

How politics uses labels to win (or lose)

Labels are also tools in public policy. Political campaigns don’t just advocate for policies - they brand them. "Medicare for All" was more effective than "single-payer healthcare." "Death tax" derailed the estate tax debate. In infrastructure, "HS2" is just a project name, but call it the "Backbone of Britain" and suddenly, it carries national significance.

I think it’s possible we’re too British to be outlandish to brand high concepts - but given the state of the world and our place in it, I think we might have no choice.

The Oxford-Cambridge Arc first take failed in part because it never built a brand that people could rally behind. It sounded like an abstract government scheme rather than an economic engine. Compare that to "Levelling Up," a vague but compelling phrase that shaped an entire political agenda (and arguably may not have achieved it’s objectives). The levelling up agenda in the UK made little tangible progress to date, with many key metrics showing stagnation or decline… but the label mattered, coalescing public and partisan support. It also fundamentally misunderstands where growth comes from - conceptually.

Reframing the Oxford-Cambridge initiative as the "UK Innovation Flywheel" could shift the narrative and protect the initiative against what befell it in 2022. It would imply an ongoing cycle of research, investment, and economic spillovers that go far beyond a simple infrastructure project. It would also make it harder for opposition voices to dismiss it as a one-off, fixed plan.

From Arc to Flywheel

Rebranding the Oxford-Cambridge project isn’t just linguistic pedantry - it’s a strategic shift. Here’s what it does:

• Encourages broader investment: a corridor benefits those inside it. A flywheel suggests an open, expanding system that attracts talent and capital.

• Changes the political stakes: a corridor or arc is a planning exercise. A flywheel is an economic movement - harder to kill, easier to sustain.

• Opens the ownership of success: an ‘arc’ might be an elitist, ivory tower concept and ‘corridor’ might a closed shop liked a walled garden. A flywheel is a national resource we own the results of as a country.

• Positions the UK for global competition: Silicon Valley isn’t a corridor. Neither is Shenzhen. They are self-perpetuating ecosystems of growth.

Britain doesn’t need another corridor. It needs an engine of compounding growth.

Language matters. Labels matter.

If the UK wants to build its answer to Silicon Valley, it should start by calling it what it is: a Flywheel.

With it - Britain can build, together.