Palantir Lobbyist Had Role in Burnham Campaign

Published: 02 October 2026. The English Chronicle Desk. The English Chronicle Online

A communications professional whose company previously worked for US technology firm Palantir played a senior role in Andy Burnham’s successful campaign to return to Parliament, adding a new dimension to scrutiny surrounding the technology company’s relationship with the Labour government.

Martha Dalton, co-founder of communications and public affairs firm Lodestone, worked for Burnham during the Makerfield by-election in June, when the then mayor of Greater Manchester secured a return to the House of Commons. Dalton took six weeks of unpaid leave from Lodestone and worked closely with Burnham’s campaign team on strategic communications and responses to political criticism.

Burnham subsequently became Labour leader in July and was appointed prime minister shortly afterwards. His rapid move from Greater Manchester mayor to Downing Street has since placed relationships surrounding his campaign under increased attention, particularly as his government faces decisions involving major companies with interests in the public sector.

Lodestone previously worked for Palantir during 2024 and 2025, undertaking projects designed to explain the company’s technology and its applications in public services. Among the activities associated with the work were parliamentary events where Palantir engineers demonstrated software to MPs and answered questions concerning technology, data privacy and security.

Dalton’s involvement with Burnham’s campaign was therefore carried out after Lodestone had worked with Palantir, although the firm has said that she did not have contact with clients during her period of unpaid leave and that her campaign activity was undertaken in a personal capacity.

Dalton herself described the campaign as an important personal undertaking, saying that she considered it an honour to work on Burnham’s campaign for Labour leadership and the premiership. Her work in Makerfield included communications support and preparing responses to issues raised during the campaign.

The timing has attracted attention because the Burnham government is now facing an important decision about Palantir’s involvement with the National Health Service. Palantir leads the consortium operating the NHS Federated Data Platform, a system intended to help health services share and manage information across different parts of the NHS.

The existing contract was awarded after a procurement process in 2023. Government documents state that the arrangement has an initial term followed by extension options and review points. A significant decision regarding continuation of the arrangement is expected around the first major break point in 2027.

The contract has become a politically sensitive issue. Supporters of the system argue that the technology can help hospitals coordinate services, manage waiting lists and improve operational efficiency. Critics have raised questions about privacy, public confidence, data governance and the involvement of a US-based technology company in the management of sensitive NHS information.

In July, a cross-party parliamentary committee urged ministers to consider ending the relationship with Palantir when the relevant contractual break point arrives and to explore alternative systems. The committee cited concerns about public trust, data security and questions surrounding the effectiveness of the platform.

The government has not announced a final decision on whether the contract will be extended. In September, ministers said the supplier agreement would be reviewed through normal contract-management procedures and that the outcome would be announced in due course.

The debate has intensified because Palantir has other major contracts with the British state. The company also works with the Ministry of Defence and has pursued or secured technology-related agreements with police forces and other public bodies.

Palantir’s international activities have also contributed to the political discussion. The company has faced criticism from campaigners over its work connected to Israel’s military and its involvement in US immigration enforcement under the administration of Donald Trump. Palantir has defended its work and rejected some of the characterisations made by critics.

The company’s executives have argued that its technology can produce practical benefits for public services. In relation to the NHS, Palantir has maintained that its platform can help improve healthcare operations and support more efficient delivery of services.

The question of potential conflicts of interest is separate from the wider debate over whether Palantir should retain its NHS role. Campaign transparency rules and government guidance are designed to ensure that people working in political campaigns properly declare relevant interests and that potential conflicts are considered.

Tom Brake, chief executive of the campaign organisation Unlock Democracy, has said campaign teams should follow Cabinet Office guidance concerning secondments, outside interests and possible conflicts. His comments reflect a wider concern about maintaining confidence in the political process when people involved in government or election campaigns have professional relationships with companies seeking public contracts.

The Labour Party has said that established rules and procedures are in place to manage potential conflicts and that those procedures were followed in this case.

Lodestone has similarly defended Dalton’s role. The company has said that its work for Palantir was focused on helping explain the company’s technology to people responsible for scrutinising it, rather than influencing decisions on the company’s behalf. It has also stressed that Dalton did not deal with clients while she was working on Burnham’s campaign.

Palantir has confirmed that Lodestone worked on several projects designed to explain how its software is used in public services. The company has pointed to parliamentary demonstrations as examples of its efforts to engage with MPs over issues including privacy and security.

The issue has nevertheless become significant because of the growing overlap between technology companies, public-sector procurement and political networks. Communications and public affairs firms frequently work with businesses while their employees also have political experience or connections. The resulting relationships do not automatically establish wrongdoing, but they can attract scrutiny when governments subsequently make decisions affecting former clients.

Dalton’s political involvement extends beyond Burnham’s campaign. She previously worked on the deputy leadership campaign of Lucy Powell, who later became education secretary, during the period after Lodestone had stopped working for Palantir.

Her experience illustrates the movement of communications professionals between the corporate, political and public-policy worlds. Such movement is common in Westminster, where campaign strategists, public affairs specialists and political advisers often move between government, opposition parties, consultancy firms and private companies.

For Burnham, the matter comes at a particularly important moment. Since becoming prime minister, he has faced pressure over a range of public-sector policies while attempting to establish his government’s approach to technology, public services and economic development.

The Palantir contract presents a difficult policy question because it involves both potential technological benefits and concerns over trust and accountability. Ending the arrangement could satisfy campaigners who want a different approach to NHS data infrastructure, but changing a major national system could also involve financial, technical and operational challenges.

The government therefore faces a decision that extends beyond the question of its relationship with one company. It must consider how sensitive public data should be managed, what role foreign technology companies should have in essential public services, and how procurement decisions can maintain public confidence.

The political connections surrounding Palantir have made that debate more closely watched. The company has expanded its presence across Britain’s public sector at a time when governments are increasingly dependent on advanced data systems and artificial intelligence. At the same time, questions about ownership, accountability, data security and corporate influence have become increasingly prominent.

Burnham’s own political journey has also added significance to the issue. He returned to Parliament through the Makerfield by-election on 18 June, winning the seat for Labour, before becoming Labour leader on 16 July and prime minister on 20 July. The speed of those developments means people who played roles in his campaign have quickly become connected to a government making decisions on major national issues.

The discovery of Dalton’s campaign role does not by itself establish that her previous professional relationship with Palantir influenced Burnham or his government’s decisions. The relevant parties have denied inappropriate conduct and pointed to existing procedures for handling potential conflicts.

The episode does, however, highlight the importance of transparency when individuals move between political campaigns and commercial public-affairs work. As governments increasingly depend on private technology companies to deliver digital infrastructure, relationships between politicians, campaign professionals, lobbyists and corporations are likely to remain under close examination.

The decision over Palantir’s future role in the NHS will ultimately be made through the government’s procurement and contract-management processes. Ministers will have to weigh evidence about the platform’s performance against concerns about privacy, public trust, security and long-term technological independence.

For the wider political system, the episode is another reminder that public confidence can depend not only on whether formal rules are followed, but also on how clearly relationships and potential conflicts are explained. As Burnham’s government considers the future of one of the NHS’s most closely watched technology contracts, scrutiny of the people and organisations surrounding that decision is likely to continue.