We live in a cynical age. Even allowing for this, spare a moment of pity for formerly high-flying UK Chancellor of the Exchequer Rishi Sunak. Until recently the odds-on favorite to succeed scandal-plagued Prime Minister Boris Johnson, Sunak has dramatically fallen back to earth. First, his most recent budget announcement amounted to a damp squib, satisfying neither the Tory hawks worried about out-of-control spending nor the doves, terrified by the looming cost of living crisis. Second, his ultra-wealthy wife’s complicated tax and domicile status merely confirmed the suspicion that the Conservative elite are cosmically out of touch with a populace suddenly grappling with 7 percent inflation, a 30-year high. But third, and by far the most galling, the Metropolitan Police saw fit to fine Sunak for attending one of Boris Johnson’s illegal parties during lockdown, even though he was only in No. 10 to attend an entirely unrelated meeting. That’s right: Sunak was fined for literally being in the way (uninvited) of Johnson’s surprise birthday party on June 19, 2020, organized by the latter’s wife, Carrie. So furious was Sunak with this turn of events that it has been widely reported he seriously thought about resigning, presumably to get out of the Kafka novel he now finds himself in, of doing nothing more than being in the wrong place at the wrong time. His rival’s difficulties must have put a ghoulish smile on the embattled prime minister’s face. But of course, Johnson, too, was fined for being at the same party. And despite the British commentariat’s settling view that Teflon Johnson has somehow dodged another bullet — surviving being the first British prime minister in history to have broken the law in office — my strong prediction remains that his days are numbered. As an unnamed senior backbench Tory MP put it in The Times: “These are rules he wrote… To pretend he didn’t understand them is risible. There may be more fines and, at some point, even those defending him will find it becomes indefensible.” But what of the present Conservative Party consensus that, with an international crisis raging, now is simply not the time to remove the prime minister — whatever his obvious failings — as to do so would merely provide comfort to President Vladimir Putin? Frankly, this nonsense fails both tests of logic and of history. The British tradition is replete with examples of changing premiers in wartime. In fact, this happened in both world wars (and undoubtedly for the better) as an ineffectual H.H. Asquith gave way to the energetic David Lloyd George and the appeaser Neville Chamberlain blessedly ceded the premiership to Winston Churchill. So, to suddenly pretend that this is “simply not done” is not true. The Westminster village may be ready to forgive and forget the PM’s hypocrisy, but the still-furious British people are not. Dr. John C. Hulsman But such a feeble defense also fails the test of logic. How does exercising democratic principles — in this case holding a scandal-plagued prime minister to account — somehow lessen the argument for the global upholding of democratic values? Doesn’t it do just the opposite? No, this fragile and feeble Conservative consensus is not likely to survive the further onslaught of events. Three dangers still lurk ahead for Johnson. First, the May local elections were already set to be a disaster for the Tories; after “partygate,” they may be even worse. Surely, the spring vote will put paid to the cynical Tory fiction that Johnson has a unique magical touch with the voters and needs to be retained whatever his moral failings. Second, despite being commonly seen to have had “a good war” regarding Ukraine, providing decisive and steady leadership, it is clear that the public at large have neither forgotten, nor forgiven, Johnson’s pandemic transgressions in ignoring the very rules he put in place, while the rest of the country suffered. A recent YouGov poll, issued just after Johnson’s fine was announced, found that a 57 percent majority of Britons felt that both Johnson and Sunak should quit for their violations. The Westminster village may be ready to forgive and forget Johnson’s hypocrisy, but the still-furious British people are not. Finally, the unnamed backbencher’s comment is perhaps Johnson’s greatest danger, for there may well be more fines to come. The Met has presently only issued fines for two or three of the 12 events under investigation. Johnson has been linked to six of these events. If he is fined for each, the sheer weight of his careless disregard for his own distancing rules could well bring him down, as the fines will be seen not as a stupid mistake, but as a pattern. It is what partygate says about Johnson — confirming the narrative that he is a careless, spoiled, entitled elitist who thinks the rules are for little people — that will do him in. As I wrote in an earlier column, this “Marie Antoinette problem” is what is really at play here. Tory MPs, after next month’s local election shellacking, will go home for the summer and get an earful from their constituents. If Johnson’s fines mount up, and as the public still does not forgive him, look for the unsentimental Tories to then move their leader on. Johnson is not out of the woods yet. John C. Hulsman is the president and managing partner of John C. Hulsman Enterprises, a prominent global political risk consulting firm. He is also a senior columnist for City AM, the newspaper of the City of London. He can be contacted via johnhulsman.substack.com.