If Sir Keir Starmer’s apparent indifference to politics led to his downfall, one symptom of this was his decision to appoint his friend and former colleague Lord Hermer KC as Attorney General. Now that Lord Hermer has resigned, and his ministerial career has been swept away with the other remnants of the Starmer regime, it is worth revisiting his time in office and the impact of Hermerism on this country.
If Hermerism can be summarised, it is made up of a belief that international law is inherently more legitimate and therefore more important than domestic law
Once appointed, it did not take long for Lord Hermer to make his mark. One of his first acts was to issue new legal risk guidelines for government lawyers that, as my Policy Exchange colleague Conor Casey and I argued, undermine political accountability while unsettling the relationship between international and UK law.
The guidelines soon drew backlash within the government, with ministers complaining that they impeded government business, with lawyers in two departments reportedly telling ministers they were willing to ignore Lord Hermer’s admonition. It was said that his nickname among government insiders was the ‘Herminator’, a reference to his status as a blocker of policy.
Like Sir Keir Starmer, Hermer began his tenure by delivering keynote speeches in which he outlined his maximalist vision for his job. In his 2024 Bingham lecture, Hermer said the government was committed ‘clearly, and without question, [to] honouring our obligations under international law’, citing the Chagos agreement as an example.
This stance was criticised by the shadow attorney general Lord Wolfson KC as damaging to both international law and to the country: why should the UK hand over territory crucial to its defence, on the basis of an advisory opinion that isn’t legally binding, simply because it came from The Hague?
In 2025, he compared those who want the United Kingdom to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights to Carl Schmitt, the Nazis’ crown jurist, an offensive remark for which his office had to apologise. The reference to Schmitt revealed a flaw in Hermer: namely his failure to deal seriously with worldviews that diverge from his own, which made his defences of the ECHR so much less effective.
It was notable that the speech in which the former attorney made these remarks was part of a lecture series on foreign affairs and security by the Royal United Services Institute: unusually for attorneys general, Hermer exerted wide influence in foreign policy. From the Chagos agreement with Mauritius to the UK’s initial response to the war between the United States and Iran, to the conflict in Palestine, Lord Hermer’s presence was felt.
Hermer was involved with the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, which would reopen the door to lawfare against former British service personnel who were on active service in The Troubles. He was also criticised for his refusal to disclose whether he had recused himself from the decision to abandon an appeal against the Dillon decision of the High Court of Northern Ireland, a decision which potentially benefited his former client Gerry Adams.
Hermer’s stance on the prosecution of British troops in Northern Ireland became even more controversial due to disclosures concerning his involvement with the notorious lawsuit by Iraqis who accused the British Army of engaging in war crimes, allegations which were found to be lies in the Al-Sweady inquiry.
Barristers are, of course, expected to represent their clients zealously, but it was felt that Hermer went too far beyond what his professional duties required of him. For example, as disclosed in emails, Hermer advised the lawyer Phil Shiner, who was subsequently convicted of fraud over his actions in the Iraqi detainee case, to ‘generate sufficient interest’ with claims about British servicemen while leaving ‘wriggle room [in a press statement] if the killings did not in fact happen’. In another email, which has outraged many of his colleagues at the Bar, he wrote to a barrister on his team: ‘your handwork [sic], dedication and ability is outstanding and has made a real difference to peoples [sic] lives – that is not something that Forbes, Neil Garnham [counsel for the Government, now Mr Justice Garnham] or his clients can ever say’.
What is the total sum of this? If Hermerism can be summarised, it seems to be made up of a belief that international law is inherently more legitimate and therefore more important than domestic law, coupled with an absolute commitment to legal proceduralism, even when it comes at the expense of good governance.
Hence, Hermer sought to anathematise those who want the UK to withdraw from certain international legal obligations as acolytes of a Nazi jurist. And at the same time, told the government’s lawyers that they should only advance certain legal arguments with a high risk of failing as a last resort, even when they were legally tenable, so unreasonably limiting their ministers’ policy options.
This is a possible result of Hermer’s lack of previous political experience. In the British system, the Crown’s chief law officer is normally a lawyer and a politician, which allows them to provide legal advice that is both grounded in the law and constructive from a policy perspective. As Conor Casey has argued in a paper for Policy Exchange, by contrast, an attorney general without experience in politics may, as Hermer did, be too cautious and ‘approve only those policies they feel are consistent with the “best view” of the law they think a Court might reach.’
Primary responsibility for Hermerism must be laid at the feet of Sir Keir Starmer, who broke with time-honoured practice and chose his political neophyte friend for an office which has always had both legal and political dimensions. Hermer is, by all accounts, a good lawyer, but the role of the attorney general demands much more, and he failed to produce a coherent vision. Instead, he alternated between ham-fisted forays into politics and advocating for a contentious vision of the rule of law that denuded politics of its power.
It was ironic that Hermer’s time in office ended on a sour note, given his insistence on his commitment to the rule of law. A week before he left his office, he was trenchantly criticised by the Lady Chief Justice in a judgment about three teenage rapists whose sentences the Attorney General had referred to the Court of Appeal as unduly lenient. Hermer had failed to correct inaccuracies in a Crown Prosecution Service press release about the trial judge’s decision, inaccuracies that led to threats against the judge. Had he not been dismissed in the reshuffle, he might well have been forced to resign as a result of this criticism.
Andy Burnham comes to his job with a fresh policy agenda, some of which will require significant legal changes. The success of any new programme of action may well depend on the calibre of legal and political advice he will receive. Will Manchesterism be stymied by Hermerism, albeit without Lord Hermer? This could become one of the defining questions of Burnham’s premiership.
