‘Absolutely incorrect!’ Tom Harwood stunned as GB News guest claims Lord Hermer’s Nazi jibe at Reform was justified

Khan defended the Attorney General's historical comparison, whilst Harwood branded it "absolutely incorrect" and questioned why the political class remains "obsessed with 1930s Germany".

Khan justified the comparison when asked by Harwood whether Lord Hermer was right to draw allusions to Nazi Party jurists.

"I think he was. I'm not sure why there's this outpour about it, are we saying it's not true? Is it factually and historically incorrect? Or is it 'we know this is true, but it's a bit rude to say it?'," Khan said.

Tom responded forcefully, calling the comparison "absolutely incorrect" when applied to "leading politicians of moderate political parties representing huge numbers of people in this country".

LATEST DEVELOPMENTS

• Lord Hermer forced to apologise after admitting 'disgusting' Nazi jibe at Reform was 'clumsy'
• Richard Holden blasts Keir Starmer and Nigel Farage for ‘living in each other’s heads’
• POLL OF THE DAY: Should Britain leave the ECHR? - VOTE NOW

He argued these politicians were simply questioning "an outdated institution" that now issues rulings never envisioned by Winston Churchill.

The GB News star challenged the historical parallel by invoking British constitutional tradition, arguing: "Why is the political class so obsessed with 1930s Germany? You might as well have said 1688 and the glorious revolution and the assertion of parliamentary sovereignty over the crown.

"This is British tradition and nothing to do with 1930s Germany."

He emphasised that "the history of British democracy has been parliamentary supremacy" and criticised the European Court of Human Rights for making rulings on issues like climate policy.

Tom cited recent decisions telling countries like Switzerland to change their climate policies "on the basis of nannies getting too warm", describing such rulings as beyond what the institution's founders intended.

Khan countered that parliamentary supremacy has limits, stating: "Parliamentary supremacy doesn't mean you can do anything."

He cited the Rwanda deportation policy as an example of dangerous overreach, explaining: "In Rishi Sunak's stupid Rwanda bill, we had all the evidence Rwanda is not safe and sitting in Westminster, our MPs said 'we declare Rwanda to be safe'."

Khan argued that ignoring courts and international norms creates a problematic precedent: "When you ignore courts, human rights and international norms and say 'as long as 600 people vote on something that's correct', that's of course wrong."

He concluded: "There's a difference between being sovereign and supreme."