if the caucus were to pass a non-confidence motion, it would trigger an election.

generally, true caucus revolts in canada result in the formation of new parties rather than the removal of a sitting leader. examples include the conscription crisis of 1917 when many liberals joined the unionist government and the mulroney collapse of the early 1990s when the reform and bloc split off from the conservative party. while canada has historically had two major parties, it is also a multi-party system with either three or four or five stable factions (depending on who you ask).

that said, there are many examples of prime ministers resigning. in fact, harper was the anomaly, in that sense - chretien, mulroney, trudeau and pearson all resigned while in office. if he wins a few more elections, the younger trudeau will no doubt get pushed out, eventually.

what is unprecedented would be a resignation on such quick order. there hasn't even been a second throne speech, yet.

that said, i don't expect trudeau to have much of a chance against a real uprising, nor for it to need to splinter the party. trudeau has at times stated things like "i was offered this job", making it clear that he knows where he really exists in the party hierarchy. if the party executive decides it's time to move on, justin will have his speech ready within hours. in fact, they'll no doubt already have written it.

but, i don't actually think that this is a caucus revolt, at this time. i don't know what it is, yet - but it's not a revolt.

a question i'd like to throw out there that deserves some serious contemplation is this: why is the us ambassador deeply involved in the discussions at this point?

i suggested that it wasn't clear if this was a purge or a counter-purge. but, there is a third option.

https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/could-the-liberal-caucus-turf-justin-trudeau-if-they-wanted-maybe-but-not-easily