Decades ago, the late American academic Christopher Lasch made a bold and eerie prediction: that in the future, it wouldn’t be the public rising up against those in power—it would be the elites turning against ordinary people.
Fast forward 30 years, and many believe that’s exactly what we’re witnessing in Britain today.
At the center of this growing frustration is Lord Richard Hermer, the Government’s Attorney General.
Once a relatively unknown barrister, Hermer has quickly become one of the most powerful—and controversial—figures in British politics.
Critics argue he’s not only out of touch with the public but actively working against their interests.
The Power Move That Sparked Outrage
Since taking up the role in July last year, Hermer has quietly reshaped how government lawyers interact with ministers.
His latest move? Inserting a clause in legal guidance that requires civil servants to alert him if they suspect ministers’ decisions might break the law.
Detractors have dubbed it a “snitch clause”, calling it a classic power grab that undermines the democratic process.
Former Attorney
many agree. After all, Hermer isn’t an elected official.
He was appointed by Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer—an old friend and fellow human rights lawyer.
Yet he now holds veto power over key government decisions, arguably acting as a shadow deputy prime minister.
Blocking Britain’s Role on the Global Stage?
Take, for instance, his reported role in advising the UK not to join US and Israeli strikes on Iranian nuclear sites.
Why? Because it might breach international law.
That may sound reasonable to some, but to others, it’s seen as prioritizing legal technicalities over national security and global alliances.
This isn’t an isolated instance. Many say Hermer’s track record shows a pattern of legal decisions that undermine British interests, raising serious concerns about who’s really steering the ship in Whitehall.
Defending the Indefensible?
Hermer’s critics frequently point to his past as a defender of controversial figures, many of whom were linked to terrorism.
While lawyers often cite the “cab-rank rule”—the principle that barristers must take cases regardless of personal opinion—questions remain about Hermer’s choices.
He represented Abid Naseer, the mastermind behind a foiled al-Qaeda bombing plot in Manchester.
He called MI5’s evidence “pitiful.” Naseer was later convicted in the U.S. and is now in a high-security prison.
Hermer also defended Rangzieb Ahmed, another al-Qaeda member allegedly tied to the July 7 bombings.
In that case, he even argued the UK should pay Ahmed compensation for supposed torture in Pakistan.
Jihadi Brides and IRA Figures in His Corner
Hermer’s list of clients also includes Shamima Begum, the ISIS bride who fled the UK at 15 and later sought to return.
He pushed for her citizenship to be reinstated.
And in 2023, he represented Gerry Adams, the former Sinn Féin leader, against bombing victims seeking damages.
That same year, Labour—under Hermer’s guidance—amended the Legacy Act, opening the door for up to 1,500 suspected terrorists to seek taxpayer-funded compensation.
When asked if he had a personal financial stake in Adams’ case, Hermer simply said he couldn’t recall.
A Career That’s Raising Red Flags
Critics argue that Hermer’s legal background and personal politics don’t reflect the values of the British public.
Yet, since stepping into the Attorney General role, he’s been central to some of the government’s most divisive moves.
For instance, he signed off on Britain’s withdrawal from the Chagos Islands, a strategic military territory.
The move means the UK could now pay up to £30 billion to lease its own base on Diego Garcia from Mauritius.
Punishing Ordinary People and Stoking Tensions
Another decision raising eyebrows was the prosecution of childminder Lucy Connolly, who was sentenced to prison over a social media post made during last summer’s Southport riots.
Many questioned whether locking up a struggling single mum was in the public interest—especially during a time when prison overcrowding was already a national issue.
Then came perhaps his most inflammatory moment: Hermer publicly compared critics of the European Convention on Human Rights to Nazis during a lecture.
He later apologized, but the damage was done.
The comment infuriated many who believe that leaving the ECHR is essential to restoring control over the UK’s borders.
The Growing Call for Resignation
For many, Hermer’s pattern of behavior—his legal history, political leanings, and controversial comments—paint a picture of an unelected bureaucrat who sees his own values as superior to those of the public.
Despite the backlash, Downing Street continues to defend him, with officials calling his advice “frank” and essential for “the system to work properly.”
But that only fuels further outrage among those who feel their voices are being ignored.
A Symbol of Elitist Overreach?
To his critics, Hermer represents the very thing Lasch warned about: a ruling elite turning against its own people.
hile he’s entitled to his views—however “woke” they may be—what many find unacceptable is how much influence he now wields over major national decisions, all without a single vote from the public.
The calls are growing louder: Hermer must go.