Two points about prorogation. First, according to section 5 of the Charter, Parliament must sit at least once every twelve months. Second, the Prime Minister can ask the Governor General to prorogue Parliament, but the ultimate decision is hers. I would expect that, if the request was made in very bad faith, she would refuse. The last prorogation, so that the scandal over WE charity could die down, was already a doubtful one. Proroguing now would be a mockery of our parliamentary system. If Parliament is found to be so dysfunctional that the Government cannot operate, the proper response is a new election, not prorogation, and the Governor General should know this.
Second, most Liberals have no shame. I think that Matt Gurney's appeal to their conscience is misplaced. Events since the SNC-Lavalin affair, the WE Charities scandal, and the foreign interference revelations have amply shown this.
Furthermore, a good number of progressives, including Liberal Ministers and MPs, have convinced themselves that that the election of a government led by Pierre Poliievre would be Armageddon. Social institutions would be dismantled, human rights would be suppressed, and our interests would be sold off to American Venture Capitalists.
We have lots of politicians, but few if any statesmen, Other countries have this problem as well. But I live in Canada, and I weep for my country.
This GG is owned by Troodas. She would not ever refuse a prorogation request by Troodas. Our "parliamentary" system has been a mockery shortly after Troodas became PM. There are multiple institutions in this country, e.g. senate, the judiciary and legal system, federal civil service that need to be subjected to an Armageddon by a sane government.
Politicians always run against Armageddon and its ever-changing cast of straw man villains (see Trump, Donald, #Resistance). The formula is disingenuous, unethical, and commits several fallacies of logical relevance, but it's a winning one.
I don’t know. I remember Harper’s “prorogation crisis” he used to keep from being toppled. The opposition and media raised holy hell but the GG gave it to him and it was forgotten in a week. I don’t see how Trudeau proroguing would be any different.
Exactly my point. It’s the prime minister’s call. It’s not the call of someone who represents the king with delusions of grandeur. (Does anyone else remember the CBC sketch “Welcome to ‘I’m Adrian Clarkson and you’re not!’”?)
The governor general doesn’t have an option in that scenario. Not any valid ones.
George, you conclude with ".... I weep for my country."
I am absolutely NOT trying to be a smart ass here but, honestly, I gave up weeping for the country of my birth long ago and I simply hope and pray that the country dissolves.
The current grouping in charge has given me renewed reason to hold that hope for dissolution. I believe that the next grouping will find their path littered with fiscal and other corpses and minefields which have no rational reason for being other than to be obstructionist and will further cement my view of the efficacy (none) and worth (absolutely less than none!) of the current political configuration.
Excellent podcast. I asked myself how long can the Liberals insanity go on. Then was doom scrolling and read recent National Post article 'New $34.8 million sleeping bags for Canadian Army can't withstand harsh winter'. A must read this government can NOT execute on ANYTHING including purchasing sleeping bags! I am not making this up read the article. Liberal execution so poor it's almost funny.
It's hard to imagine how CBC could be 'reformed' to the federal Liberals' satisfaction any more than it already is, short of putting it under direct control of the Prime Minister's Office.
Justin Trudeau is The Cool Kid in School. That’s his thing. The problem is that by the time you hit 50, your peer group no longer gives a damn about being cool, and younger cohorts think you’re not.
By the way, I can totally conceptualize the destruction of liberal party. This party is far less popular than Brian Mulroney. I also don’t believe the polls that they are between 20 and 25%. If they were actually polling between 20 to 25%, they would not be losing seats in Montreal or Toronto.
If you don’t believe me, ask yourself, if the Conservatives were polling at 20 to 25%, would they lose aseat in rural Alberta? We all know the answer is no. These seats in Montreal and Toronto are the equivalent of that.
When most of their support in national polls was already concentrated in those ridings, it’s not surprising that a smaller change in national polling can reflect a catastrophic swing in their strongholds. They’ve bragged about their “efficient vote” in the past couple of elections. The problem with that sort of efficiency is that it’s susceptible to creating a wave of losses too.
John, Trudeau has not hit the low mark of the Mulroney Government (yet). In 1993 the Tories ended up with just 2 seats. It is very possible Trudeau could end up with only 20 seats and that would be almost as much of a disaster for Trudeau as the 2 seats the Tories won in 1993.
There can potentially be greater partisan fluctuation within given ridings than there is nationwide, even though the former usually match the latter. It is entirely possible for the Liberals to be a little better in popular support than they were in the 2011 election despite losing seats that they did not lose then. Also, by-elections can be special cases with unusual mechanics at play, even if recent by-election results clearly re-affirm a general trend where the Liberals are in serious trouble.
I follow The Line's logic on Jagmeet Singh's dilemma, but I can't help asking, what if he *does* vote against the government? He wouldn't have any money to fight the election campaign, true, but is that really what matters? NDP poll numbers haven't gone up in years, but they haven't gone down any, either. What's the downside?
If they end up with roughly the same or somewhat fewer MPs in the next parliament, but they end up with the respect of other parties in terms of their unwillingess to be bullied, is that not a win?
There are four main downsides I see for the NDP triggering an election:
1. Regardless of how many seats they win, realistically they'll have next to zero leverage with a Conservative majority, and it's not even looking like they have much of a shot to be official opposition
2. Some of the legislation they've been pushing for could die before being passed (e.g. Pharamacare bill in senate)
3. Individual MPs don't want to risk losing their seats for no reason (or their pensions in some cases) regardless of what the party totals look like, plus Singh doesn't want another loss on his record.
4. Ideologically, they'd presumably rather have the Liberal government than a Conservative government
All of that means that with nothing obvious to gain (other than some credibility) from an election but various things to lose, they're likely to kick the can down the road as long as possible.
2. The legislation they pushed for has been watered down into meaninglessness and slow-rolled.
3. This is selfishness and cowardice.
4. If the NDP is unwilling to ever vote against the Liberals - which will naturally in Canadian politics always empower the Conservatives - what is the point of the NDP?
They still have leverage assuming the Liberals want to stay in power without giving into the Bloc demands.
Otherwise, I don't really disagree, but when considering the "downside" I don't think we can dismiss factors like MPs not wanting to lose their jobs or losing the small wins they got from the S&C agreement. And the NDP would argue they exist to win and will vote against the Liberals when it's strategically to their advantage to do so, which now it likely isn't.
I get wanting to see the end of this government, but the NDP delaying bringing them down does strike me as rational decision, even if not a particularly principled one.
Jen, you overestimate how motivated Canadians are to protest anything in the streets. Protest is just not in our "shut up and get back to work" working class culture. Especially in English Canada.
This is the country that invented keyboard activism, and it is the country that invented honk-honk convoys that do nothing except give the aggrieved and underemployed something to do.
Our politicians know this well, and know they can get away with things in Canada that they never would in the US, Latin America or Europe.
So ...... KS, when it comes time, will you join me in the drive to Ottawa and join in the caravan of doom that dares the PMO to declare the Emergency Act?
Souls? Long gone! If you think the current show is run by a narcissist & PMO that relies on him staying in office, then of course they’ll do absolutely anything to stay in power. Souls don’t even get a look in.
Enjoyed the discussion as usual. You're one of the few outlets that seem to get what's plaguing the Liberals and not falling into the typical traps I'm seeing like suggesting they just need a new leader.
One small thing I would dispute is inferring any broader trends about the Green Party based on Andrew Weaver's comments in BC. Weaver has always seemed a little bit heterodox and difficult to figure out - he's a climate scientist praising the Conservative leader who was booted from BC United for questioning climate change science.
Uh, did I miss something where the Trudeau parliament now has the power to permanently set policy prevent future parents from reversing policy?
It seems to me that one of the first orders of business for the next government would be to simply reverse obvious panic policies that were bad ideas and only adopted to buy a a few months for a few politicians.
I think it’s mainly a practical observation that it’s politically extremely challenging to claw back any entitlement after it’s been granted. However, the Conservatives may have a strong justification to cut once they get into power and properly examine government finances.
If the Cons want to last more than one term, they WILL have to clean up the finances. If some folks will scream, too bad. The Cons then can ask, OK citizens do you want another 10 years of Liebranodips ?
You are correct, that a new government will have to deal with finances. Further, recall that Harper raised the age of eligibility for OAS to (as I recall) 67 from 65.
Of course, the Face Painter reversed that. My point is that these things can be reversed but it is important to remember that taking away something that is a "right" (snicker, snicker) is very tough and will need courage and explanation.
Reminder: the big news-breaking scandal was *not* the fact that Mike Duffy accepted a $90,000 bribe. The big scandal was that the Prime Minister's wealthy Chief of Staff *paid out* a $90,000 bribe to a sitting Senator.
That is absolutely a scandal on an equivalent scale to SNC Lavalin. Political bribery organized by the Prime Minister's Office and PMO harassing of an Attorney General for not interfering in the justice system were both in the news cycles for the persistent lack of consistency of the Prime Minister's story in the face of new facts continuously coming to light.
Yeah, nope. No one was convicted of bribery. There’s a world of difference between giving someone your own money to make the Crown whole for questionable expense claims (the rules of which were so loosey-goosey) and pressuring the attorney general, who should be arm’s length from politics, to enter into a sleazy deal with a sleazy company to get off corruption charges because they are a big donor to the party and major employer in a province important to the party’s chances of re-election.
Duffy privately made demands of the PMO that he be made "whole" on his expense claims, or else he would not acknowledge any self-wrongdoing as the PMO asked him to do. The Chief of Staff of the PMO complied. That is simply a bribe based on evidence of balance of probabilities, whether or not the RCMP foolishly bungle the prosecution case, or whether a criminal conviction is even in principle plausible.
No one was convicted for the harassment of JWR either, but that doesn't exonerate the shadiness and the lies in the SNC Lavalin affair either.
It wasn’t really a bribe. The money went to the federal treasury, and it was an attempt to stamp out the scandal of Duffy’s excessive expense claims. Wright made it look like Duffy paid back the money, but it just came out of Wright’s own pocket.
"it was an attempt to stamp out the scandal of Duffy’s excessive expense claims"
That's why it was a bribe! A sitting Senator was influenced in the conduct of his office (showing false contrition for expense claims where he would otherwise not do so) as part of an agreement that was explicitly contingent upon his receipt of undisclosed money. If that is not a bribe, then I do not know what is.
Ya the initial scandal was a "quaint" one of questionable expenses, but having the PMO send secret payments to a sitting senator was a significant scandal. While I don't believe the payment was actually meant as a bribe (likely PMO just wanted to help Duffy make the problem go away and wasn't expecting anything in return), the appearance of the PMO secretly sending money to parliamentarians who (in theory at least) are supposed to act as the checks & balance on the executive branch was clearly wrong.
The PMO did get something in return: Mike Duffy showed false contrition to the public in exchange for being paid with the $90,000 cheque. That was the explicit quid pro quo.
And on anti-prorogation protests from the Harper years, my personal favourite was "Perogies, not Proroguing" where people stuck it to the man by eating perogies.
Harper didn't prorogue to avoid a confidence motion. He won the election, and the other parties (Libs, Cons, and Bloc) wanted a chance at governing. In exchange for her cooperation, I think May was going to be given a senate seat (although I may be misremembering that part).
I tend to agree - that proposed coalition would have been a mess. The prorogation had the intended effect of buying time for cooler heads on both sides to prevail: enough Liberals got cold feet with the coalition idea and the Conservatives were more willing to compromise rather than acting like they had a majority, and as a result were able to keep the confidence of Parliament.
Yes, but the request for the Governor General to appoint the coalition would only have happened after the government formally lost confidence of parliament. So technically the prorogation was done to avoid a non-confidence motion (all the coalition stuff is what would have likely happened after that).
The reason why the other parties wanted to vote known confidence doesn’t change the fact that they were going to introduce a nonconfidence motion, and the prorogation was to avoid that vote
Two points about prorogation. First, according to section 5 of the Charter, Parliament must sit at least once every twelve months. Second, the Prime Minister can ask the Governor General to prorogue Parliament, but the ultimate decision is hers. I would expect that, if the request was made in very bad faith, she would refuse. The last prorogation, so that the scandal over WE charity could die down, was already a doubtful one. Proroguing now would be a mockery of our parliamentary system. If Parliament is found to be so dysfunctional that the Government cannot operate, the proper response is a new election, not prorogation, and the Governor General should know this.
Second, most Liberals have no shame. I think that Matt Gurney's appeal to their conscience is misplaced. Events since the SNC-Lavalin affair, the WE Charities scandal, and the foreign interference revelations have amply shown this.
Furthermore, a good number of progressives, including Liberal Ministers and MPs, have convinced themselves that that the election of a government led by Pierre Poliievre would be Armageddon. Social institutions would be dismantled, human rights would be suppressed, and our interests would be sold off to American Venture Capitalists.
We have lots of politicians, but few if any statesmen, Other countries have this problem as well. But I live in Canada, and I weep for my country.
This GG is owned by Troodas. She would not ever refuse a prorogation request by Troodas. Our "parliamentary" system has been a mockery shortly after Troodas became PM. There are multiple institutions in this country, e.g. senate, the judiciary and legal system, federal civil service that need to be subjected to an Armageddon by a sane government.
This country needs a new constitution,.desperately.
Politicians always run against Armageddon and its ever-changing cast of straw man villains (see Trump, Donald, #Resistance). The formula is disingenuous, unethical, and commits several fallacies of logical relevance, but it's a winning one.
Does not speak well for the quality of the general electorate. We got Troodas 3X.
I would like an election. Mr. Trudeau needs to go.
But if he recommends to the GG to prorogue parliament and it does not happen?
Oh there will be HELL to pay!!
Such a request would be weasel behaviour, but will within what the GG is REQUIRED to do. We had better not have another GG with delusions of grandeur.
I don’t know. I remember Harper’s “prorogation crisis” he used to keep from being toppled. The opposition and media raised holy hell but the GG gave it to him and it was forgotten in a week. I don’t see how Trudeau proroguing would be any different.
Exactly my point. It’s the prime minister’s call. It’s not the call of someone who represents the king with delusions of grandeur. (Does anyone else remember the CBC sketch “Welcome to ‘I’m Adrian Clarkson and you’re not!’”?)
The governor general doesn’t have an option in that scenario. Not any valid ones.
George, you conclude with ".... I weep for my country."
I am absolutely NOT trying to be a smart ass here but, honestly, I gave up weeping for the country of my birth long ago and I simply hope and pray that the country dissolves.
The current grouping in charge has given me renewed reason to hold that hope for dissolution. I believe that the next grouping will find their path littered with fiscal and other corpses and minefields which have no rational reason for being other than to be obstructionist and will further cement my view of the efficacy (none) and worth (absolutely less than none!) of the current political configuration.
Excellent podcast. I asked myself how long can the Liberals insanity go on. Then was doom scrolling and read recent National Post article 'New $34.8 million sleeping bags for Canadian Army can't withstand harsh winter'. A must read this government can NOT execute on ANYTHING including purchasing sleeping bags! I am not making this up read the article. Liberal execution so poor it's almost funny.
It's hard to imagine how CBC could be 'reformed' to the federal Liberals' satisfaction any more than it already is, short of putting it under direct control of the Prime Minister's Office.
Justin Trudeau is The Cool Kid in School. That’s his thing. The problem is that by the time you hit 50, your peer group no longer gives a damn about being cool, and younger cohorts think you’re not.
By the way, I can totally conceptualize the destruction of liberal party. This party is far less popular than Brian Mulroney. I also don’t believe the polls that they are between 20 and 25%. If they were actually polling between 20 to 25%, they would not be losing seats in Montreal or Toronto.
If you don’t believe me, ask yourself, if the Conservatives were polling at 20 to 25%, would they lose aseat in rural Alberta? We all know the answer is no. These seats in Montreal and Toronto are the equivalent of that.
When most of their support in national polls was already concentrated in those ridings, it’s not surprising that a smaller change in national polling can reflect a catastrophic swing in their strongholds. They’ve bragged about their “efficient vote” in the past couple of elections. The problem with that sort of efficiency is that it’s susceptible to creating a wave of losses too.
John, Trudeau has not hit the low mark of the Mulroney Government (yet). In 1993 the Tories ended up with just 2 seats. It is very possible Trudeau could end up with only 20 seats and that would be almost as much of a disaster for Trudeau as the 2 seats the Tories won in 1993.
They still have a ways to go to be as unpopular as Mulroney. They were polling at 15-16% when he left.
There can potentially be greater partisan fluctuation within given ridings than there is nationwide, even though the former usually match the latter. It is entirely possible for the Liberals to be a little better in popular support than they were in the 2011 election despite losing seats that they did not lose then. Also, by-elections can be special cases with unusual mechanics at play, even if recent by-election results clearly re-affirm a general trend where the Liberals are in serious trouble.
I follow The Line's logic on Jagmeet Singh's dilemma, but I can't help asking, what if he *does* vote against the government? He wouldn't have any money to fight the election campaign, true, but is that really what matters? NDP poll numbers haven't gone up in years, but they haven't gone down any, either. What's the downside?
If they end up with roughly the same or somewhat fewer MPs in the next parliament, but they end up with the respect of other parties in terms of their unwillingess to be bullied, is that not a win?
There are four main downsides I see for the NDP triggering an election:
1. Regardless of how many seats they win, realistically they'll have next to zero leverage with a Conservative majority, and it's not even looking like they have much of a shot to be official opposition
2. Some of the legislation they've been pushing for could die before being passed (e.g. Pharamacare bill in senate)
3. Individual MPs don't want to risk losing their seats for no reason (or their pensions in some cases) regardless of what the party totals look like, plus Singh doesn't want another loss on his record.
4. Ideologically, they'd presumably rather have the Liberal government than a Conservative government
All of that means that with nothing obvious to gain (other than some credibility) from an election but various things to lose, they're likely to kick the can down the road as long as possible.
But,
1. They have zero leverage now.
2. The legislation they pushed for has been watered down into meaninglessness and slow-rolled.
3. This is selfishness and cowardice.
4. If the NDP is unwilling to ever vote against the Liberals - which will naturally in Canadian politics always empower the Conservatives - what is the point of the NDP?
They still have leverage assuming the Liberals want to stay in power without giving into the Bloc demands.
Otherwise, I don't really disagree, but when considering the "downside" I don't think we can dismiss factors like MPs not wanting to lose their jobs or losing the small wins they got from the S&C agreement. And the NDP would argue they exist to win and will vote against the Liberals when it's strategically to their advantage to do so, which now it likely isn't.
I get wanting to see the end of this government, but the NDP delaying bringing them down does strike me as rational decision, even if not a particularly principled one.
Jen, you overestimate how motivated Canadians are to protest anything in the streets. Protest is just not in our "shut up and get back to work" working class culture. Especially in English Canada.
This is the country that invented keyboard activism, and it is the country that invented honk-honk convoys that do nothing except give the aggrieved and underemployed something to do.
Our politicians know this well, and know they can get away with things in Canada that they never would in the US, Latin America or Europe.
So ...... KS, when it comes time, will you join me in the drive to Ottawa and join in the caravan of doom that dares the PMO to declare the Emergency Act?
Souls? Long gone! If you think the current show is run by a narcissist & PMO that relies on him staying in office, then of course they’ll do absolutely anything to stay in power. Souls don’t even get a look in.
Enjoyed the discussion as usual. You're one of the few outlets that seem to get what's plaguing the Liberals and not falling into the typical traps I'm seeing like suggesting they just need a new leader.
One small thing I would dispute is inferring any broader trends about the Green Party based on Andrew Weaver's comments in BC. Weaver has always seemed a little bit heterodox and difficult to figure out - he's a climate scientist praising the Conservative leader who was booted from BC United for questioning climate change science.
The OAS ideas also stupid politically for the Bloc. There are young people in Quebec. It will drive them into the arms of the Conservatives.
The Bloc's base are boomers as are the Liberals. What do boomers want more than entitlements from the treasury?
Escalating asset prices
Good point
Gee the media sure forgot about that foreign interference that included sitting members. JT is a slippery one !
.... and HIS MSM and see-pee-see are a slimy bunch. As always they are layering him thick with teflon.
“Seven billion dollars annually in perpetuity”.
Uh, did I miss something where the Trudeau parliament now has the power to permanently set policy prevent future parents from reversing policy?
It seems to me that one of the first orders of business for the next government would be to simply reverse obvious panic policies that were bad ideas and only adopted to buy a a few months for a few politicians.
I think it’s mainly a practical observation that it’s politically extremely challenging to claw back any entitlement after it’s been granted. However, the Conservatives may have a strong justification to cut once they get into power and properly examine government finances.
If the Cons want to last more than one term, they WILL have to clean up the finances. If some folks will scream, too bad. The Cons then can ask, OK citizens do you want another 10 years of Liebranodips ?
You are correct, that a new government will have to deal with finances. Further, recall that Harper raised the age of eligibility for OAS to (as I recall) 67 from 65.
Of course, the Face Painter reversed that. My point is that these things can be reversed but it is important to remember that taking away something that is a "right" (snicker, snicker) is very tough and will need courage and explanation.
I love how the old FreeDominion crowd with all the childish sayings moved over to The Line comment section.
Libranos, LibranoDips, Liebranos, LIEbranos, LIEberals, Face Painter, Troodas, Trudas — grow up.
Geoff, you have me buffaloed: what does your comment have to do with the previous comments in this thread?
Reminder: the big news-breaking scandal was *not* the fact that Mike Duffy accepted a $90,000 bribe. The big scandal was that the Prime Minister's wealthy Chief of Staff *paid out* a $90,000 bribe to a sitting Senator.
That is absolutely a scandal on an equivalent scale to SNC Lavalin. Political bribery organized by the Prime Minister's Office and PMO harassing of an Attorney General for not interfering in the justice system were both in the news cycles for the persistent lack of consistency of the Prime Minister's story in the face of new facts continuously coming to light.
Yeah, nope. No one was convicted of bribery. There’s a world of difference between giving someone your own money to make the Crown whole for questionable expense claims (the rules of which were so loosey-goosey) and pressuring the attorney general, who should be arm’s length from politics, to enter into a sleazy deal with a sleazy company to get off corruption charges because they are a big donor to the party and major employer in a province important to the party’s chances of re-election.
Comparing apples to rockets.
Duffy privately made demands of the PMO that he be made "whole" on his expense claims, or else he would not acknowledge any self-wrongdoing as the PMO asked him to do. The Chief of Staff of the PMO complied. That is simply a bribe based on evidence of balance of probabilities, whether or not the RCMP foolishly bungle the prosecution case, or whether a criminal conviction is even in principle plausible.
No one was convicted for the harassment of JWR either, but that doesn't exonerate the shadiness and the lies in the SNC Lavalin affair either.
More like blackmail
It wasn’t really a bribe. The money went to the federal treasury, and it was an attempt to stamp out the scandal of Duffy’s excessive expense claims. Wright made it look like Duffy paid back the money, but it just came out of Wright’s own pocket.
"it was an attempt to stamp out the scandal of Duffy’s excessive expense claims"
That's why it was a bribe! A sitting Senator was influenced in the conduct of his office (showing false contrition for expense claims where he would otherwise not do so) as part of an agreement that was explicitly contingent upon his receipt of undisclosed money. If that is not a bribe, then I do not know what is.
Ya the initial scandal was a "quaint" one of questionable expenses, but having the PMO send secret payments to a sitting senator was a significant scandal. While I don't believe the payment was actually meant as a bribe (likely PMO just wanted to help Duffy make the problem go away and wasn't expecting anything in return), the appearance of the PMO secretly sending money to parliamentarians who (in theory at least) are supposed to act as the checks & balance on the executive branch was clearly wrong.
The PMO did get something in return: Mike Duffy showed false contrition to the public in exchange for being paid with the $90,000 cheque. That was the explicit quid pro quo.
And on anti-prorogation protests from the Harper years, my personal favourite was "Perogies, not Proroguing" where people stuck it to the man by eating perogies.
Matt I love your borrowing your cannon reference from Alfred, Lord Tennyson's The Charge of the Light Brigade. That stanza ends in
“Boldly they rode and well,
Into the jaws of Death,
Into the mouth of hell
Rode the six hundred.”
Can you really see JT leading the charge to the polls even if he borrows a pair of balls from Jean Chretien?
Harper didn't prorogue to avoid a confidence motion. He won the election, and the other parties (Libs, Cons, and Bloc) wanted a chance at governing. In exchange for her cooperation, I think May was going to be given a senate seat (although I may be misremembering that part).
I think he did us all a huge favour by proroguing.
I tend to agree - that proposed coalition would have been a mess. The prorogation had the intended effect of buying time for cooler heads on both sides to prevail: enough Liberals got cold feet with the coalition idea and the Conservatives were more willing to compromise rather than acting like they had a majority, and as a result were able to keep the confidence of Parliament.
Yes, but the request for the Governor General to appoint the coalition would only have happened after the government formally lost confidence of parliament. So technically the prorogation was done to avoid a non-confidence motion (all the coalition stuff is what would have likely happened after that).
He was facing a nonconfidence vote.
He prorogued parliament to avoid that vote.
That’s just the facts.
The reason why the other parties wanted to vote known confidence doesn’t change the fact that they were going to introduce a nonconfidence motion, and the prorogation was to avoid that vote