Tom Watson used to be the guy who went after Murdoch. You remember that, right? The Labour deputy leader who actually had a spine when it came to holding powerful media empires accountable. And now? Now he’s a senior vice-president at Palantir, telling us we need to worry about “mob rule” in government procurement.

I mean, come on.

What Exactly Is Mob Rule Anyway?

Here’s Watson’s actual question: “Do you want to let the rule of law lead procurement practice, or do you want mob rule to lead procurement practices?” Which, okay, sounds reasonable until you realize there are two different things people mean when they say “mob rule.” One is literal thugs dragging civil servants off trains because they don’t like a contract decision. The other? It’s just a fancy way of dismissing democracy when it becomes inconvenient.

And look, I haven’t seen any pitchforks at procurement meetings yet. What I have seen is a concerning lack of democratic transparency around how these massive government contracts get handed out. Especially when they go to companies like, oh I don’t know, Palantir.

The thing is, Watson knows the difference between actual mob violence and public accountability. He has to. This is the same person who took on one of the most powerful media operations in the world. So when he frames democratic oversight as potential “mob rule,” it kind of makes you wonder what changed. (Actually, we know what changed – his employer.)

Palantir’s Quiet British Invasion

Over the past few years, this US tech company has been quietly embedding itself into the British government. Not with a big flashy announcement or public debate about whether this is a good idea. Just steadily, methodically worming its way in.

And that word – worming – it’s not mine originally, but damn if it doesn’t capture something essential about how this has happened. Because Palantir doesn’t exactly have the cleanest reputation. We’re talking about a company with deep ties to US intelligence services, a history of controversial data practices, and the kind of opacity that should make any democracy nervous.

“Do you want to let the rule of law lead procurement practice, or do you want mob rule to lead procurement practices?” – Tom Watson

But here’s what really gets me. The people who should be asking hard questions about this – the people who should be demanding transparency about what data Palantir has access to, how it’s being used, what safeguards exist – those people are being preemptively dismissed as a potential “mob.” It’s a hell of a rhetorical move, I’ll give them that. The case of 197 Days Under Surveillance is another reminder that government-adjacent surveillance cannot operate without meaningful oversight and due process.

The Irony Is Almost Painful

Watson built his political career on holding powerful entities accountable. The phone hacking scandal, the Leveson Inquiry – that was all about demanding transparency from organizations that had gotten too cozy with government, too confident in their untouchability. And now he’s on the other side, working for a company that thrives on the exact opposite of transparency.

From what I can tell, Palantir’s contracts with the NHS alone are worth examining closely. We’re talking about some of the most sensitive personal data that exists – medical records, health histories, the kind of information that in the wrong hands could be catastrophic. And the level of public scrutiny these arrangements have received? Minimal at best.

It’s not entirely clear yet what the full scope of Palantir’s government work in Britain actually is. Which is kind of the problem, isn’t it? When a foreign tech company with intelligence agency connections is handling your citizens’ data, “it’s not entirely clear” shouldn’t be an acceptable answer.

What This Actually Means

The bigger picture here is about how democracies handle the increasing power of tech companies, especially ones that specialize in data and surveillance. And whether we’re allowed to ask questions about that without being accused of forming a mob. Why the Dutch Just Ditched Microsoft for Good shows how far democratic governments are willing to go when major technology vendors become indispensable to public services.

Because let’s be real – public concern about who handles government data and how isn’t mob rule. It’s literally just democracy working the way it’s supposed to. People are allowed to be worried when a controversial foreign company gets deep access to their government systems. They’re allowed to demand explanations. They’re allowed to think maybe this deserves more debate than it’s gotten.

Watson’s new talking points suggest that kind of public engagement is somehow threatening the “rule of law.” But actually, it’s the lack of transparency and democratic oversight that threatens it. When major government contracts with significant implications for privacy and sovereignty get handed out quietly, and then any criticism gets labeled as potential mob behavior? That’s when you should start worrying.

The irony is, Watson probably knows this better than most. He just seems to have forgotten it.