Tom Watson has entered one of Britain’s fiercest technology and procurement battles with a warning aimed at his former political colleagues: public contracts must not be decided by “mob rule.” The former Labour deputy leader now serves as a senior vice-president at Palantir, a US tech corporation facing public and political backlash over its involvement in British public services.
Palantir’s work has reached the NHS, the Metropolitan police, the Israeli military and the White House’s ICE immigration crackdown. Its growing role in public contracts has placed the company at the centre of a debate over artificial intelligence, government decision-making and control of sensitive data.
Watson Calls for Rule of Law in Procurement
Watson has warned against “mob rule” influencing the awarding of public contracts. Speaking to his former colleagues, he said: “One of the things I’d say to my former colleagues is: do you want to let the rule of law lead procurement practice, or do you want mob rule to lead procurement practices? Because you get yourself in a lot of trouble if you go down on the latter one.”
His argument arrives as Palantir faces pressure over a £330m software deal with the NHS. More than 44,000 people filed legal objections to the Palantir NHS platform by 30 September 2026, turning the contract into a major test of how public bodies handle AI systems and large-scale health data.
Palantir has access to NHS data, and the company’s NHS role became a focus of attention on 21 May 2026. Andy Burnham, the Prime Minister, is under pressure over Palantir contracts, adding a political dimension to the dispute around the company’s public-sector work.
Watson’s comments place him on the inside of a company he has advised since 2024. Palantir said he had taken a leave of absence from the House of Lords and relinquished his parliamentary pass while working for the company in London.
A Powerful Company Facing Political Resistance
Palantir was co-founded by billionaire Peter Thiel. The company has provided AI-powered software to the Israeli military and to the White House’s ICE immigration crackdown, facts that have helped fuel opposition to its involvement in British public services.
That opposition now stretches beyond the NHS. Palantir is fighting Sadiq Khan in court over a £50m contract to use its AI in Metropolitan police investigations. The court case was recorded on 22 May 2026, one day after attention focused on Palantir’s access to NHS data and Khan’s block on the contract.
The dispute raises a direct question about how government agencies should judge AI suppliers: should procurement decisions follow formal rules, or should political and public backlash determine which companies receive contracts? Watson has urged a clear answer, arguing that the rule of law must lead procurement practice.
Chi Onwurah, the Labour MP and chair of the science, innovation and technology committee, has raised a different concern about reliance on Palantir. “We can’t be so dependent on one company. It’s a US company, subject to US legislation regarding access to our data,” she said.
Her warning focuses on dependence and data access, while Watson’s focuses on the process used to award contracts. Together, the arguments show why Palantir’s government work has become a wider debate about technology policy, national control and public trust.
Watson’s Political Experience Meets Palantir’s Growth
Watson brings long government experience to his role at Palantir. He was a defence minister and a minister for digital engagement in Gordon Brown’s government before stepping down from parliament in 2019.
Since leaving parliament, Watson has worked as an adviser to the gambling and music industries. He became a part-time adviser to Palantir in 2024 and is now its senior vice-president, linking a record of public service with a company seeking a larger role in government technology.
Palantir’s UK business recorded annual turnover of £427m. On 5 August 2026, the company was reported as having paid £2m in corporation tax in the UK in 2024, adding another financial detail to scrutiny of its British operations.
The Financial Conduct Authority’s concerns about a Palantir deal were recorded on 1 June 2026, showing that questions about the company’s contracts extend beyond healthcare and policing. Each agreement brings the same central issue into view: how much responsibility should public institutions place in the hands of one technology company?
Palantir’s supporters can point to its government contracts and AI-powered software as evidence of demand for its systems. Its critics point to the NHS objections, the court fight with Khan and the company’s work for the Israeli military and ICE. Watson’s warning now adds a new force to that clash by challenging opponents who seek to shape procurement through public pressure.
The debate is moving forward on several tracks at once: the NHS platform, the Metropolitan police contract, the FCA’s concerns and political pressure on Burnham. With Palantir’s UK turnover at £427m and its public-sector presence under close attention, the next decisions will help define how Britain governs AI contracts.
Palantir’s future in British public services will not rest on technology alone. It will depend on whether ministers, officials and the public accept Watson’s call for rule-led procurement, or follow Onwurah’s warning about dependence on a US company with access to sensitive data.
Based on
