Labour’s Top Law Chief Hides Behind Spokesman After Nazi Slur

Attorney General Lord Hermer refuses to withdraw inflammatory parallel between Conservative policies and Hitler's Germany, expressing regret only for his 'choice of words'

Labour's Attorney General faced a furious backlash after comparing Conservative and Reform policies to Nazi Germany — then issued a statement regretting his 'clumsy' wording while standing firmly by the inflammatory comparison.

Lord Richard Hermer sparked outrage when he likened those who question international treaties to jurists who enabled Hitler's rise to power in the 1930s. But rather than withdraw the explosive remarks, the Labour peer merely acknowledged through a spokesperson that his "choice of words was clumsy" — while explicitly defending the substance of his argument.

In an extraordinary speech that sent shockwaves through Westminster, Lord Hermer drew parallels between modern British politicians and Carl Schmitt, a Nazi supporter who helped Hitler bypass Germany's constitution. The inflammatory comparison was aimed at Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch and Reform UK's Nigel Farage over their stance on international agreements.

When the inevitable backlash erupted, Lord Hermer's office issued a statement expressing regret only for the phrasing — while pointedly standing by the parallel to Nazi Germany.

The peer himself remained conspicuously silent on his provocative comparison.

Ms Badenoch branded the comments "embarrassing" and accused Labour of "self-loathing," while demanding a proper apology. She declared: "Our sovereignty is being eroded by out-of-date treaties and courts acting outside their jurisdiction. Pointing this out does not make anyone a Nazi."

The incident has echoes of Sir Keir Starmer's own past as a human rights lawyer — a background he has desperately tried to distance himself from as Labour leader. Critics say Lord Hermer's inflammatory rhetoric — and refusal to retract it — reveals the party's true colours despite its attempts to appeal to mainstream voters.

The Attorney General's office later claimed his speech was merely meant to defend international law — but maintained the Nazi-era comparison, leaving Labour red-faced and raising serious questions about the judgment of the government's most senior legal adviser.