Palantir is worming its way into the British state – it’s time to curb this controversial US company’s influence | George Monbiot
George Monbiot argues that Palantir’s growing role in UK government contracts deserves closer scrutiny, particularly amid concerns about political access and weak lobbying transparency. He says Tom Watson’s warning against “mob rule” risks conflating intimidation with democratic scrutiny, and questions whether Palantir’s influence has been properly disclosed.
The article says Palantir has won contracts worth hundreds of millions of pounds across defence, policing, finance and health, including a £241m Ministry of Defence deal awarded without an open tender. It cites meetings involving senior politicians and company leaders, alleged links between lobbyists and the firm, and the employment of more than 30 former UK ministers and officials. It also notes criticism of some Palantir products and calls for limits on the company’s influence.
- Palantir has secured major UK public sector contracts.
- The article questions political access and lobbying transparency.
- Monbiot argues its influence should be curbed.
New here? Start with this
Palantir is a US technology company that supplies software for analysing and linking large amounts of data. In the UK, its systems have been used or considered by public bodies including the Ministry of Defence, police forces and the NHS.
Government contracts can give a company a significant role in how public services and state agencies use data. Questions about how contracts are awarded, who meets company representatives and whether lobbying is disclosed are part of wider debates about public accountability and the safeguards around sensitive information.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Palantir’s expanding role in UK government raises legitimate concerns about transparency, accountability and dependence on a powerful private contractor. Large public contracts, including one awarded without an open tender, political access and the movement of former officials into the company’s orbit make scrutiny and clear disclosure important safeguards for public trust. Critics can reasonably argue that democratic oversight should examine whether the company’s influence and products serve the public interest.
The case against
Palantir’s supporters can argue that government agencies need effective technology for complex tasks across defence, policing, finance and health, and that a company’s controversial reputation does not by itself show its work is improper. Contracts awarded without open competition may sometimes reflect specific operational or procurement needs, while existing oversight and contract rules may be better ways to address concerns than broadly curbing the firm’s role. They may also caution that political scrutiny should remain evidence-based and avoid treating legitimate access or former officials’ employment as proof of undue influence.
Americas Business Celebrity Companies Economy Entertainment Government Politics UK World