Tom Watson Warns Against ‘Mob Rule’ in UK Contracts

Published: 09 October 2026. The English Chronicle Desk. The English Chronicle Online

Tom Watson, the former Labour deputy leader who recently joined US technology company Palantir, has warned British politicians against allowing public pressure to determine government procurement decisions, arguing that contracts should be governed by the rule of law rather than what he described as “mob rule”. His comments come amid growing political and public scrutiny of Palantir’s expanding role in British public services, including a major software agreement with the National Health Service (NHS).

Watson, who now serves as a senior vice-president at the technology corporation, made the remarks while discussing concerns about the company’s involvement in government projects. His intervention has added a new dimension to the debate over how public authorities should evaluate technology suppliers, particularly companies whose international activities have generated controversy.

Palantir has become a prominent provider of data analysis and artificial intelligence software for governments, defence organisations and other large institutions. Its technology is designed to help organisations integrate information from different sources, identify patterns and support operational decision-making. However, its work with military and immigration authorities, alongside concerns about data privacy and corporate accountability, has made the company a focus of political disagreement in several countries.

The corporation was co-founded by Peter Thiel, the billionaire technology investor known for his support of US President Donald Trump. Palantir has provided AI-powered software to the Israeli military and supported US government operations, including those associated with Immigration and Customs Enforcement, commonly known as ICE. These activities have prompted protests and criticism from campaigners who question the ethical implications of using advanced data systems in military operations, immigration enforcement and public administration.

The controversy has increasingly reached Britain, where Palantir is seeking to strengthen its position in the public sector. Critics have questioned whether a foreign technology company with access to sensitive information should play such a substantial role in essential public services. Supporters of the company, meanwhile, argue that its technology can help institutions modernise operations, manage complex information and improve efficiency.

Speaking on the BBC podcast *Political Thinking with Nick Robinson*, Watson challenged his former Labour colleagues to consider whether procurement decisions should be determined by established legal procedures or by public campaigns against particular companies.

He argued that ministers could face serious difficulties if they allowed public pressure to dictate procurement practices rather than following the rule of law. His remarks were directed at the growing debate over whether government departments and public bodies should continue awarding contracts to Palantir despite the controversy surrounding its international operations.

The dispute highlights a fundamental question for public procurement: how should governments balance legal requirements, commercial performance, national interests and ethical considerations when selecting technology providers? Public contracts are generally expected to follow established rules designed to ensure transparency, competition and value for money. However, the public responsibilities of government buyers can also require them to consider data protection, security risks, human rights concerns and the wider consequences of their commercial relationships.

Watson also rejected the suggestion that Palantir should be treated as an Israeli company because of its work in Israel. He said the corporation had become a target of criticism associated with protests against Israeli companies and its involvement in the conflict-related controversy surrounding Gaza.

His argument reflects the company’s position that its identity and operations should be assessed on their own terms rather than through assumptions about its customers or international partnerships. Nevertheless, critics maintain that the activities of a technology supplier are relevant when public authorities assess whether its products and services are appropriate for sensitive government work.

One of the most significant issues facing Palantir in Britain concerns its relationship with the NHS. The company has secured a software agreement worth approximately £330 million, making it a major participant in efforts to modernise how health-service information is managed and used.

The agreement has attracted opposition from Labour politicians, trade unions and campaigners who have raised questions about the involvement of a US technology company in a system that holds extensive and sensitive patient information. Concerns include the potential risks of dependence on a single supplier, the protection of confidential medical records and the extent to which public institutions can maintain control over their digital infrastructure.

Those concerns are not limited to Palantir. Governments around the world increasingly rely on private technology companies to provide cloud services, data analysis systems and AI tools. While such partnerships can offer expertise and technical capabilities that public institutions may struggle to develop independently, they can also create long-term dependencies and complicate efforts to change suppliers.

Chi Onwurah, the Labour MP who chairs the House of Commons Science, Innovation and Technology Committee, has expressed concern about the company’s growing influence. Speaking to BBC Radio 4’s *Today* programme, she warned against allowing enthusiasm for new technology to overshadow questions about strategic dependence and control of sensitive information.

Onwurah argued that Britain should not become excessively dependent on one company, particularly when that company is based in the United States and subject to American legislation that could affect access to data. Her comments underscore the wider debate over digital sovereignty: whether governments retain sufficient control over critical systems and information when they depend on overseas suppliers.

For the NHS, the issue is especially sensitive because health data can reveal intimate details about individuals, their medical histories and their treatment. Any technology arrangement involving such information must be assessed against strict requirements for security, confidentiality and appropriate access. The precise safeguards, contractual responsibilities and technical arrangements therefore remain central to public scrutiny of the agreement.

Palantir is also involved in a legal dispute with London Mayor Sadiq Khan over a proposed £50 million contract involving the Metropolitan Police. The dispute follows Khan’s decision to block the agreement, which would have involved using the company’s AI technology in police investigations. Palantir is challenging the decision through legal proceedings.

The case illustrates how disagreements over technology procurement can extend beyond questions of price and technical performance. Police use of data analysis tools raises additional concerns about privacy, oversight, the treatment of personal information and the possibility that automated systems could influence decisions affecting individuals.

The debate is likely to intensify as public authorities consider expanding their use of AI. Supporters argue that sophisticated analytical systems can help investigators process large volumes of information and identify relevant connections more efficiently. Critics warn that the technology must be subject to meaningful safeguards, independent scrutiny and clear accountability, particularly when it is used in law enforcement.

Watson also addressed the possibility of Palantir working with a future Reform UK government on immigration enforcement. Asked whether the company would cooperate with such an administration if the opportunity arose, he indicated that it would, saying that Palantir did not currently operate in that sector but would be willing to do so.

The comment is politically significant because immigration enforcement has become a major point of disagreement in British politics. Reform UK has advocated tougher immigration policies, while other parties and civil society organisations have raised questions about the legal, humanitarian and administrative consequences of more restrictive approaches.

Watson’s remarks suggest that Palantir would be prepared to consider work with a government pursuing stricter immigration measures, should an appropriate opportunity arise. However, his comments do not establish that the company has agreed to a particular contract or that it currently provides the proposed services to a Reform UK administration.

The prospect nevertheless raises questions about the role of data technology in immigration policy. Digital systems can help public authorities organise records, manage cases and coordinate operations, but their use also requires clear legal limits, safeguards against errors and mechanisms for challenging decisions. These considerations become particularly important when decisions can affect an individual’s ability to remain in a country, access services or exercise legal rights.

Watson described Palantir as “the most interesting company on the planet” when announcing his new position last month. According to the company, part of his role will involve strengthening the social and economic value generated by its work through improved British public services, employment and skills development.

His appointment brings political experience to a company seeking to expand its UK operations. Watson previously served as a defence minister and minister for digital engagement under former prime minister Gordon Brown. He left Parliament in 2019 and subsequently worked as an adviser to businesses in the gambling and music industries. He had also served as a part-time adviser to Palantir since 2024.

Palantir has said Watson is taking a leave of absence from the House of Lords and has relinquished his parliamentary pass while working for the company in London. His move from political life into a senior corporate role has nevertheless drawn attention to the relationship between government, public procurement and the private technology sector.

The wider challenge for British policymakers is to establish a framework that allows public institutions to benefit from technological innovation without compromising accountability, privacy or public confidence. Governments need access to effective digital tools, but the selection of suppliers must withstand scrutiny over legal compliance, security, cost and the long-term interests of the public.

Watson’s warning against “mob rule” places emphasis on the importance of established legal procedures in public contracting. His critics, however, may argue that democratic accountability also requires elected representatives and public institutions to respond to legitimate concerns about the conduct of companies receiving taxpayers’ money.

Ultimately, the controversy surrounding Palantir reflects a broader struggle over how Britain should manage its growing dependence on private technology providers. The decisions made about NHS software, policing systems and potential immigration applications could influence public confidence in AI and establish precedents for future government contracts.

As Palantir pursues further opportunities in Britain, the company will face the challenge of demonstrating that its technology delivers public value while meeting the standards expected of suppliers working with sensitive information. For ministers and public authorities, the task will be to ensure that procurement decisions are lawful, transparent and informed by evidence, while taking legitimate ethical and security concerns seriously.