In a move that took some by surprise, Keir Starmer worked hard to appoint his long-time friend Richard Hermer as attorney general back in July. This decision came at the cost of Emily Thornberry, a dedicated shadow cabinet member who had held this position for years, indicating a shift in priorities for the Labour leadership. To bring Hermer on board, he had to be granted a peerage, marking significant political changes.
However, questions quickly arose among Hermer’s acquaintances about how well he would fit within the new Labour government. Many thought his strong principles, particularly his critical stance on Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories, might clash with the party’s approach. Yet walking away wouldn’t be difficult for him, as he would easily resume his legal practice.
Contrary to those concerns, recent buzz suggests he might actually be too determined in pushing the government towards his ideals, sparking speculations of potential dismissal. Critics outside the administration label Hermer as a “lefty lawyer” whose emphasis on international law seems to undermine national sovereignty. They accuse him of infusing an outdated liberal mindset into governmental decisions, particularly noting his views on the British Empire. Grievances range from serious topics to rather petty disputes, like how he reportedly accepted a reduced fee in a “no win, no fee” case back in 2006, as highlighted by the Telegraph.
In an interview last month, Hermer addressed these critiques head-on, saying he would relish a confrontation if people wish to challenge the government’s commitment to international law. “Bring it on,” he remarked.
On another front, shadow justice secretary Robert Jenrick points to possible conflicts of interest due to Hermer’s past clientele, including figures like Gerry Adams, who might seek compensation if the Legacy Act is overturned. However, Hermer’s supporters explain that he handles such potential conflicts like his predecessors did, by referring them to the solicitor general when needed.
Despite Hermer’s team acknowledging that responding to detailed criticisms is challenging due to legal conventions, they believe drawing up a list of topics from which he would step aside could overly complicate his work.
What’s more worrisome is the internal criticism he faces, mainly focusing on his perceived obstruction of the government’s goals and a supposed lack of political savvy. While his detractors claim he’s hindering policy-making, his supporters find it absurd, given Hermer’s history of tackling daunting legal battles.
Dominic Grieve, a former Tory attorney general, defends Hermer, suggesting critics are essentially blaming the messenger. Hermer’s colleagues might be frustrated, but his allies argue that the attorney general is simply delivering hard truths the government needs to confront.
Originally from South Wales and now residing in North London, Hermer, at age 56, is described as approachable, readily offering guidance when asked. He joined the Labour Party at 16 and opposed Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership due to concerns over electability and antisemitism—positions quite ordinary among Labour MPs under Starmer. So, why the friction now?
Hermer and Starmer’s friendship dates back to their early days at Doughty Street Chambers in 1996. Yet, it seems that this close connection with the prime minister does not shield Hermer from internal attacks; in some cases, it might even incite them.
One problem Hermer faces is his relatively recent involvement in the political scene, missing out on years of camaraderie that others in the cabinet have developed. Under Starmer, Hermer’s role appears to have gained more prominence, perhaps stirring discontent as it contrasts recent Conservative governments’ attitudes toward the rule of law. Some believe that Hermer’s direct participation in many cabinet committees has led him to deliver candid advice more often than previous attorneys general, who might have communicated through government lawyers instead.
Despite allegations that Hermer lacks political tact—a critique often aimed at Starmer—he insists that his job is to offer unbiased, independent counsel, uncolored by day-to-day politics. So, is his job to advise, leaving the rest to ministers? Or should his advice align with their policy aims?
As one senior aide notes, ministers opposing Hermer might be taken aback by his blunt advice. “People need to be more resilient. It’s just advice. If you want to take the political risk, that’s your call,” the aide says.
Others argue an attorney general’s legal insights are not mere suggestions but definitive guidelines that ministers must adhere to, framing Hermer’s role as involved with understanding political implications.
While Hermer might fall short in political maneuvering, Starmer seems to favor this kind of approach. Often it seems that the dissatisfaction directed at Hermer is, in fact, a misdirected critique of Starmer, using Hermer as a stand-in. One friend comments, “Everything discontented people feel about Keir blows back at Richard because he’s not the one in charge.” As questions persist about Starmer’s capacity to merge policy execution with compelling political vision, Hermer remains a vulnerable figure.
