For evidence of Labour doubt in the Starmer project, look no further than his attorney general | Sienna Rodgers

6 hours ago 1

Keir Starmer went to considerable effort to bring in his old friend and colleague Richard Hermer as the new attorney general in July. To facilitate the move, the barrister not only had to be ennobled, but it required giving the boot to Emily Thornberry – a long-serving shadow cabinet member who’d held the post in opposition for several years – which came as a surprise.

Friends of Hermer soon began to wonder how long he would last in post, as they suspected that the Labour government would not be radical enough to live up to his principles (particularly on Israel, the KC being a critic of its occupation of the Palestinian territories). And quitting would be low-stakes when an easy return to the day job awaits.

What has emerged is the reverse. After weeks of media pressure, there are now rumours that Hermer could be sacked for being too forceful in making the government fit his principles.

Critics outside the government accuse the “lefty lawyer” of adopting an approach to the job that prioritises international law over national sovereignty. He is seen by them as imposing an out-of-touch liberal attitude on government decisions, characterised by his view of the British empire as “deeply racist”, and to come with unacceptable baggage. Their concerns range from substantive issues to more trivial ones, such as a recent story in the Telegraph, which highlighted how Hermer had to reduce his no win, no fee bonus in a 2006 case.

When I interviewed Hermer last month, he responded that if his critics “want to pick a fight with the government because it says international law is important”, then “that’s a fight I’d quite look forward to”. “Bring it on,” he said.

The shadow justice secretary, Robert Jenrick, has claimed the AG’s former client list throws up conflicts of interest – such as Gerry Adams, who could get compensation if the Legacy Act (which offers immunity to Troubles-era crimes in Northern Ireland) is repealed. The rebuttal is simple: Hermer follows the same process as his predecessors. Wherever conflicts arise, such matters will be directed to the solicitor general instead.

Those close to Hermer admit that specific briefings are tricky to counter. Law officer convention means the matters on which he has or has not advised the government cannot be revealed. His team believes publishing a list of broad topics from which he would recuse himself, as some have suggested, would make the job too difficult.

Mounting criticism from inside the tent is more concerning. This centres on two accusations: that Hermer is a block on the government’s agenda, and that he lacks the political nous needed for the job. The former in particular is strongly denied by Hermer’s allies, who say the idea he would shy away from challenging legal battles is absurd considering that he has fought many “unwinnable” cases during his career.

“To criticise him is to kill the messenger,” says former Tory attorney general Dominic Grieve. Hermer’s unhappy colleagues claim he is an obstacle to achieving their policy goals, but allies argue that the AG is simply imparting home truths, and his critics within the government need to accept the tough love.

Born in south Wales but now resident in north London, Hermer, 56, is a cheerful man who, sources say, always picks up the phone or rings back when advice is sought. His political background is typical of the average Labour MP under Starmer: Hermer joined Labour aged 16 and opposed Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership because he thought it made the party unelectable and due to the antisemitism crisis. Why, then, is such an inoffensive character getting people’s backs up?

Hermer and Starmer have been friends since meeting on Hermer’s first day at Doughty Street Chambers in 1996. But being the prime minister’s oldest friend in the cabinet has not protected Hermer from criticism. On the contrary, it seems his proximity to the prime minister is provoking internal attacks.

The AG is hindered by not having spent the last 15 years sitting in the tearoom with the MPs who now make up the cabinet. There is also a sense that his role has been given greater significance in Starmer’s government – a reaction to the risky approach of recent Conservative administrations to lawfulness – and that this roving brief may be causing resentment. One theory is that Hermer sits on an usually high number of cabinet committees, so he is delivering blunt advice more directly than predecessors, who might have done it more often via government lawyers.

The assertion that he lacks politics – one that has been levelled at Starmer many times – is a key part of the internal dispute. It is true that Hermer still does not see himself as a politician. And, crucially, he believes his role relies on “the ability to provide independent, impartial advice that is not tainted by day-to-day political considerations”. Is Hermer’s job to give advice, which ministers can choose to follow or not? Or is it to ensure his advice aligns with ministers’ policy priorities?

“I think they’re shocked he gives such stark advice,” one senior aide says of ministers who oppose Hermer. “People need to be a bit more robust. The advice is only advice. If you want to take the political risk, that’s up to you.”

Others counter that an attorney general’s analysis of a legal problem is not only an opinion but the law, and ministers must follow the advice or resign, which means Hermer is there to understand the politics, too.

Perhaps Hermer does lack political nous, but it looks like this is precisely the character Starmer was hoping would fill the role. Often, the true frustration of Hermer’s critics appears to actually be with the PM, with the attorney general a convenient proxy. “All the things people don’t like about Keir are being directed at Richard because he’s not the boss,” says one friend. As long as doubts linger over Starmer’s ability to combine delivery with a strong political narrative, Hermer is vulnerable.