Conor Burns, one of the troupe of Johnson loyalists willing to humiliate themselves on behalf of the prime minister, now knows the first line of his obituary. It will be his attempt to excuse Boris Johnson’s lockdown-busting birthday party inside Number 10 with the immortal phrase “he was, in a sense, ambushed with a cake”. This deserved all the mockery it got, but it is by no means the most desperate of the arguments being offered by those trying to save the prime minister’s skin. Nobody warned me it was against the rules First came all those false denials that there had been any partying at Number 10. Then the prime minister was forced to admit he went to a “bring your own booze” bash in Downing Street, a confession that came with the ridiculous alibi that he mistook a garden full of people chugging drinks for a “work event”. His most pathetic excuse has been to suggest he had no idea what was against the rules. Even if you find it kind of plausible that such a recklessly irresponsible man was clueless about the laws enacted by his own government, ignorance is no defence. Let’s get a sense of proportion Many Johnson apologists have been pushing this line as a strategy to trivialise the scandal. This version comes from the veteran Tory MP, Sir Edward Leigh: “When Europe stands on the brink of war and with a cost-of-living crisis, can we please have a sense of proportion over the prime minister being given a piece of cake in his own office by his own staff?” A lot of citizens were punished for much smaller gatherings than the birthday party in the cabinet room and we know that this was just one of at least 15 revelries in Number 10 during some of the most intense periods of the pandemic, including a raucous booze-up on the eve of Prince Philip’s funeral. This is not about “a piece of cake”. It is about whether the prime minister and his staff broke the lockdown rules that they imposed on the rest of the country and then lied about it. The Metropolitan police, which was previously very reluctant to get involved, would not now be conducting a criminal investigation if it regarded it as trivial. The Met commissioner says the police already has evidence of “serious and flagrant” breaches of the rules. We can probably all agree that Britain would be better off if Downing Street had its full attention on the Russian threat to Ukraine, soaring energy bills and the squeeze on the standard of living. We instead have a prime minister whose time is consumed by clinging on to his job. If Sir Edward and other Tory MPs want a leader focused on dangers abroad and crises at home, then they will need to get a new one. He’s not robbed a bank This contribution, almost as priceless as “ambushed with a cake”, came from the Essex Tory, Andrew Rosindell. Mr Johnson has robbed his high office of dignity, credibility and authority. Tory MPs do the same to their party the longer they go on trying to defend him. We have got all the big calls right This line is a favourite of Mr Johnson himself and one that he fell back on again at the most recent prime minister’s questions. The fatal flaw is that it is not true. Elements of Britain’s response to the pandemic have been impressive, notably the rapid development and distribution of vaccines. The credit for that primarily belongs to brilliant scientists and the efficiency with which the NHS got jabs into people’s arms. We should also take our hats off to Sir Patrick Vallance, who created the vaccine task force, and the task force’s leader, Dame Kate Bingham. The “big calls” for which Mr Johnson had prime responsibility were about the timing of lockdowns and these he judged so badly that Britain has the highest death toll in Europe. Most people broke the rules Crispin Blunt, the Conservative MP for Reigate, dismissed lockdown-busting at Number 10 with the claim that “probably inside most homes and inside most businesses, and inside most places of public administration, people may not have kept absolutely to the rules”. I’d previously taken Mr Blunt to be one of the better minds in his party. His dreadful defence demonstrates that the effort to save Mr Johnson is turning intelligent men into wretched dolts. Surveys suggest that most of the public were highly compliant with lockdowns, often making agonising choices and sacrifices to help with the life-and-death struggle to contain Covid. Even if some people did break the rules, that doesn’t make it fine for the prime minister and his staff to be among them. Lawmakers cannot be law breakers. Labour wants me to resign This claim by Mr Johnson is not aimed at you or me, but at Tory MPs’ havering over whether to trigger a confidence vote. He wants them to believe that his eviction would be a dream result for the opposition. Some Labour MPs do think that, even after all this, he would probably be a more formidable opponent at the next election than any of the alternative leaders available to the Tories. But the majority view within Labour’s ranks is that they are best served if he manages to limp on at Number 10 with his reputation shredded. There will have to be an election if the prime minister is changed This contention has been pushed by Nadine Dorries and Jacob Rees-Mogg, both famous constitutional non-experts. It is notable that the rest of the cabinet have eschewed this argument. It is easy to see why, especially in the cases of Rishi Sunak and Liz Truss. Were they to take this line and then find themselves prime minister they would have sworn up to calling a snap election whether or not it suited the Conservatives. Voters might want an election in the event of a change at the top. The opposition would very likely demand one. There’s a case to be made that a new prime minister ought to seek a fresh mandate from the public. But there is absolutely no requirement for this to happen. The two most recent changes of Tory prime minister – Cameron to May and May to Johnson – were not immediately followed by an election. Nor were the transitions from Eden to Macmillan, Macmillan to Douglas-Home, Wilson to Callaghan, Thatcher to Major and Blair to Brown. The claim there would have to be an election is a crude and bogus attempt to scare Tory MPs. What a change of prime minister would certainly mean is a new cabinet. That’s what really worries Ms Dorries and Mr Rees-Mogg. Wait for the Sue Gray report This one is changing into “delay for the detectives”. Johnson loyalists are gleeful that the Met has asked Ms Gray not to reveal key details of the eight events under police investigation. The prime minister reckons this will buy him more time, but Tory MPs should ask themselves for what purpose the time is being bought. Voters have already made up their minds that rules were broken. If Ms Gray’s report is published in heavily redacted form, which now appears to be the intention, it will look like a Whitehall whitewash. The police investigation could drag on for weeks, even months. If it ends with Mr Johnson slithering free, the public will conclude that it was an establishment stitch-up. Only a penalty charge notice Even if the police investigation results in convictions, some around the prime minister are blithely shrugging that this wouldn’t be so serious because the penalty for breaking Covid laws is usually a fine. By talking about this as if it would be no worse than receiving a parking ticket, people at Number 10 reveal that they still haven’t grasped the gravity of this scandal. The voters are sick and tired of it “I’ve been out and about with my constituents in Great Grimsby,” the Tory MP Lia Nici told the Commons. “They are sick and tired” of hearing about lockdown-busting parties at Number 10 and “want him [Johnson] to carry on getting on with the job”. If this is really true, Great Grimsby has a political microclimate entirely unlike anywhere else in the country. All the opinion polling suggests that voters are furious with the prime minister and a substantial majority, which includes about half of those who voted Conservative in 2019, think he should be removed from office. What they are sick and tired of is him and being taken for fools by his apologists.