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.
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.
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.
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 that infighting remains to be seen.
Further troubling the New Democrats is what appears to be a philosophical split in the party. The split was revealed in the middle of the election campaign when Dix suddenly declared his dead-set opposition to the proposed Kinder Morgan pipeline.
One of the reasons the NDP lost the election is because that opposition to a large industrial project may well have cost it seats outside of Metro Vancouver and Vancouver 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 which fought for the interests of those working in industries such as forestry and mining.
We may indeed be headed to a realignment of our two major parties. Perhaps B.C. will eventually have an environmental party and a business party, with minor parties around the edges.
But in the meantime, the NDP has to carry on with that giant black cloud hanging over its head, while the B.C. Liberals can't stop smiling.
And broadening those smiles is the knowledge that their wounded opponents have leadership issues and policy differences. Lucky for the NDP the session will only be a month long.
Keith Baldrey is chief political reporter for Global BC.
