Palantir: Tom Watson warns against ‘mob rule’ in public contract fights

The situation

Tom Watson, who previously served as Labour’s deputy leader, is making waves in his new role as a senior vice-president at Palantir. If you've been following the drama, you know the US tech firm has been taking heat from all sides—including Labour MPs and unions—who are pressuring Prime Minister Andy Burnham to cut ties with the company. The backlash stems from Palantir’s work with the Israeli military and the US immigration agency, ICE.

The “mob rule” comment

In a recent chat on the Political Thinking podcast, Watson hit back at the criticism. He warned that the government shouldn't let “mob rule” dictate how they hand out public contracts. According to Watson, sticking to the rule of law is essential, and he claims politicians end up in a messy spot when they bow to public pressure.

He also addressed the protests the company faces, noting they often get caught in the crossfire regarding Israel. “We’re not an Israeli company,” Watson said, “but because of our work in Israel, we found ourselves in the middle of the row of the Gaza protests.”

Future plans

When asked if he’d work with a hypothetical Reform UK government on immigration crackdowns, Watson kept it real, saying: “We don’t actually work in that sector, but yes, of course we would.”

Palantir is currently deep in the weeds with UK public services, holding a £330m NHS deal and fighting London Mayor Sadiq Khan in court over a blocked £50m Metropolitan Police contract. Watson, who is currently on a leave of absence from the House of Lords, maintains the company is the “most interesting” one on the planet.

However, not everyone is buying the vibe. Chi Onwurah, the Labour MP chairing the science and technology committee, argued that politicians are getting “blinded by tech hype” and warned that being too dependent on a single US company is a massive L for data security.

Why it matters

This story is the ultimate plot thickens moment for the UK government’s relationship with Big Tech. It forces us to ask whether public procurement should be based strictly on technical specs or if the political optics—and the values of the companies themselves—should actually count. It’s giving a major tug-of-war between institutional process and public accountability.