The province's MLAs take their place in the legislature this week, and 34 of them come back into the house with a giant dark cloud hovering over them.
Those would-be members of the new NDP caucus, a dispirited and demoralized bunch who will put their best faces forward and insist they will perform as an aggressive, responsible Opposition ready to hold the government's feet to the fire.
But how they perform in the legislature masks the fact the party faces a grim political reality. The party has a serious leadership problem, as leader Adrian Dix's hold on the job is far from secure.
Dix has said he takes "full responsibility" for the stunning election loss. What that actually means has not yet been made clear.
If he tries to hang on to his job he will face a test at the party's convention in November, when delegates will vote on whether there should be a leadership election. I suspect he will need the backing of at least 70 per cent of the delegates to continue on with any credibility, and if the vote were held today, I doubt he would receive that level of support (but time may cool some tempers).
Dix may want to review his party's remarkable record for vicious infighting when it comes to party leadership. In 1986, some members of the NDP caucus staged an unsuccessfully coup against then-leader Bob Skelly, who was perceived as someone who could not compete with Bill Vander Zalm in that year's election.
Skelly's successor, Mike Harcourt, resigned after he was essentially deserted by his own caucus when the Bingogate scandal engulfed his party. The next leader, Glen Clark, was in trouble with some members of his own caucus even before the casino scandal forced him from the premier's office.
The subsequent leadership race to replace Clark was a bitter clash between Ujjal Dosanjh and Gordon Wilson, and the anger associated with that race was heightened because the 2001 election was a foregone conclusion and the party was about to be booted from power.
And then, of course, there was the remarkable take-down of Carole James. It appeared the divisions within the caucus that were created by that crisis had healed, but I have to wonder whether the election loss and questions about Dix's leadership will rip open those wounds.
Given that every party leader between Dave Barrett and Dix faced some kind of internal revolt, it is hard to see how Dix will avoid the same treatment, although whether he survives it remains to be seen.
Further troubling the New Democrats is what appears to be a fundamental philosophical split in the party. The split was revealed in the middle of the election campaign when Dix suddenly declared his opposition to the proposed Kinder Morgan pipeline.
That opposition to a large industrial project may have cost the NDP seats outside of Metro Vancouver and Vancouver Island. By aligning itself with the environmental lobby, the party may marginalize itself and confine its support to Vancouver, a few suburbs and the Island.
This problem doesn't end with Kinder Morgan. If the NDP decides it is against things like fracking, the Site C dam and LNG terminals, it will further cement its image as an anti-job party not interested in economic development.
Such a development would be hugely ironic. The NDP traces its roots to the old CCF party, which was a labour-oriented party that fought for the interests of those working in industries such as forestry and mining.
Meanwhile, the B.C. Liberals can't stop smiling about receiving an unexpected new lease on life from the voters.
And broadening those smiles is the knowledge that their wounded opponents have leadership issues and policy differences.
Luckily for the NDP, the session will only be a month long.
