The upcoming federal NDP convention in Halifax will feature an interesting question that has long been a topic of debate for Dippers: whether or not to drop the “New” from New Democratic Party of Canada to become the Democratic Party of Canada. It’s not exactly revolutionary, but it does mark a change in both literal and symbolic terms.

A case can be made either way.

On the one hand, NDP is a recognizable “brand” across both federal and provincial levels and dropping the “new”, however minor, would require some re-branding. Some of this is practical — it means spending money on a new logo, new signs, new literature, updating the website, etc. Some on the far left of the party might also see it as a tacit alignment with the U.S. Democrats, who are hardly left-of-center on most issues — so many will not like the connotations.

On the other hand, others argue that the “new” is meaningless; after all they have been “new” for almost 50 years, long before most party members were even born. Furthermore, others argue the NDP precisely needs to renewal its “brand”. They argue that Canadians might give the Democratic Party of Canada a second look, particularly if there are positive connotations with Barack Obama in the U.S.

That’s the heart of the matter: does a name change make the party appear to be more mainstream? And does that increase their appeal? is that desirable? Or does it alienate the base who may fear the party would move away from its traditional positions?

The are Facebook groups for both the change and status quo, and even a fledgling group who are just ambivalent. Judging by the numbers (4 to 1 in favour of the status quo), it’s safe to say that the status quo has the upper hand.

Who supports what? We know Windsor West (ON) MP Brian Masse, Victoria (BC) MP Denise Savoie, Ottawa Centre (ON) MP Paul Dewar and Sackville-Eastern Shore (NS) MP Peter Stoffer and Acadie-Bathurst (NB) MP Yvon Godin all support change. But interestingly, I don’t see any NDP MPs supporting the status quo on the Facebook group, although it’s possible they do privately or have otherwise make their views public. If you know of others who’ve declared one way or the other, feel free to leave a comment below with a link.

My opinion? For the status quo, there is no upside and probably little downside. So, for the risk-averse, it’s the best bet. For change, there is the potential for upside but also possibly some downside (and cost). So change carries more risk, but also more upside. While change might end up being just window dressing, it could also kick-start a more genuine renewal. I tend to think periodic renewal of political parties is healthy, so I would probably vote in favour of change if I were a Dipper. And I do think open-minded Canadians would give the party a second look, since there is so much fatigue with the current parties. Whether that translates into more MPs and more votes will depend on running a good campaign. And I think that the vast majority of members who believe in the party’s principles will continue support the party regardless of the name, so I don’t see a major impact on the base.

My prediction? Hard-care party members for any party (i.e. the kind that attend conventions) tend to favour the status quo — after all, their affiliation with the party is part of their identity, so asking people to change the name is like asking to change a party of themselves (and most people don’t like to change!). At the very least, it takes time for people to come to terms with change. So I’m guessing the NDP comes out of Halifax the same NDP that goes into it. Whether that’s a good thing or bad is at the heart of the “new” debate.