The danger of a vote of no confidence made against the Government, which seems ever closer, is that the Government party will vote no confidence in itself, to achieve a two-thirds majority against itself, and run directly to a General Election after the leaving the European Union date. (Indeed a General election called from last week would happen after the EU leaving date, according to present Statute Law.) In this way, the opposition, rather than producing an interim Government to write the extension letter to the European Commission, would find itself and all MPs dissolved but leaving the Government under Johnson in place.
Whatever the opposition parties do, they need to keep in legislative place to check Johnson and his manoeuvres.
The other issue arising is the suggestion that, without a deal passed, the Government might opt to use emergency powers to thus both obey the law and leave the EU on 31st October - circumventing the Act of Parliament requiring the application for an extension on 19th October. This would surely be one for the Supreme Court - the unwarranted use of emergency powers, but an injunction granted first.
The allegations around Jennifer Arcuri - thus Johnson arrives at the Conservative Party conference with his otherwise backstage girlfriend - only support the matter that Johnson was and is unfit to be Prime Minister. The serious business is his breaking of conventions by powers given to a Prime Minister from the Monarch. That's what the unlawful proroguing was all about.
There is also political funding allegations from those who would benefit directly and financially from leaving on the 31st October. This would be present-day corruption.
Parliament must be present to check him, or a secure means found to remove him. He ought not to be there, and ought to be removed, but the issue is finding the legal means to remove him, and taking away these monarchical powers that need democratising.