Principles should not apply only when they are convenient.
Then the NDP should have voiced their opposition to the existing threshold BEFORE the election.
To deny the Liberals official status isn't "convenient" -- it's just the existing threshold, just like 100kph is the existing speed limit, or 0.08 is the existing threshold for DWI.
To suggest that the Liberals should be exempt from the existing threshold solely because "they came so close" when that threshold seemed fair and resonable prior to the election is actually more "convenient". And of course it then leads to the question of "what if they fell short by two?" or "what if they fell short by three?" -- effectively leading (hopefully) to the threshold we'd actually be willing to respect.
If we all agree (after the election) that seven seats is sufficient, what happens if the Cons get six in the next election?
I've many times been accused of being slavishly obsessed with "rules and regulations", but like CCO I kind of wonder why we would have them if we don't want to respect them. What's the point of saying that we need to be 16 years old to drive if we're then going to entertain arguments about some very responsible 14 year old who wants to drive?
We all want exceptions for us. That's known as exceptionalism. "This isn't like all the other cases; this is a SPECIAL case!!!"