Deploy the meat shield...
They didn't hire him for his tech skills...
Former Labour deputy Tom Watson joins Palantir as £330M NHS deal nears break point
Former Labour deputy leader Tom Watson has taken a senior UK role at Palantir as the government considers whether to invoke a break clause in the US spy-tech company's controversial £330 million National Health Service (NHS) contract. The appointment is the latest high-profile example of Palantir recruiting from British politics …
-
-
Friday 18th September 2026 12:41 GMT tiggity
Re: Deploy the meat shield...
It's quite difficult to argue he has any skills - he was not a great politician (unless you have a liking for gullible war mongers). His only selling point is who he knows.
Actually, he did have some skills - as an MP he was great at milking the expenses system, and he has shown his flexibility in making money outside of parliament (e.g. famous for making much of problem gambling being bad as an MP, but after resigning one of his nice little earners was working for a gambling company - ostensibly to advise on problem gambling but some may get a whiff of hypocrisy)
-
-
-
Friday 18th September 2026 19:47 GMT Like a badger
Re: Deploy the meat shield...
Neither of the three are members of the party currently in power
Actually, that doesn't matter. Due to ongoing malfeasance of parliament, all ex-MPs invariably retain unfettered access to Westminster, and are able to bluster, lobby and bribe government officials and backbenchers. By virtue of the shallowness of MPs, despite the fact that these people are lightweight ex-ministers of an opposition party, they still retain considerable influence.
Imagine being allowed to retain your building pass and access across the company after you leave said company in the private sector?
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Friday 18th September 2026 15:36 GMT Charlie Clark
Re: Usual path to riches for politicians and senior civil servants
If you look at the country's finances, tax increases are inevitable. It's arguably Starmer's (and that of those before him) biggest mistake to try and pretend otherwise. A tax reform* in the first year of his government would have been doable and he would have the time and the position to make the case for it. Trying to leave things as they are now that the bond markets have woken back up, is just asking for trouble.
* Spending as well but I suspect that there is not that much that can be easily cut and whereas broad-based tax increases often sound worse than they actually are, conversely "tax cuts" often bring little relief to many but can put huge holes in the budget. Just ask anyone who holds American debt.
-
Friday 18th September 2026 19:53 GMT Like a badger
Re: Usual path to riches for politicians and senior civil servants
If you look at the country's finances, tax increases are inevitable.
Not exactly, they're inevitable if the government won't address out of control benefits and social care costs. But on that basis I must concede you're right.
-
Friday 18th September 2026 21:04 GMT elsergiovolador
Re: Usual path to riches for politicians and senior civil servants
out of control benefits and social care costs
Funny that the rich owned media only talk about these kind of costs, never about cutting spending on contracts with usual suspects and other cuts that could affect the shareholders of corporations "delivering" for public sector.
-
Saturday 19th September 2026 10:07 GMT Sproggit
Re: Usual path to riches for politicians and senior civil servants
Yes, let's talk about out-of-control social care costs.
Friend of mine worked in the Bristol area as a very senior clinical psychologist - who specialized in helping traumatized kids from broken homes, or where parents had been subject to violence, crime, substance abuse, that sort of thing.
When he started working there, he was part of the NHS and the Team were extremely well regarded, dedicated to work they knew was critical and making a real difference.
Then the UK government decided that as a step towards privatization of the NHS, they would force Trusts to form an "internal market". Organizational units were split in to "clients" and "contractors" and eye-watering amounts of money were spent bringing in external consultants to help them try and form "business relationships" where in the past a simple management structure would have sufficed. Many of the best staff in situations like that simply left - taking a career break or changing careers entirely.
As a result of this, entire teams of medical specialists found themselves working for "contractors" and forced to bid for tenders that the "client" units were forced to set up. My friend, because of his seniority, not only had to carry his original case load, but he was also required by the contractor-side team to participate in the bidding process. That meant reviewing the tender/contract documents, preparing a bid response, representing his organization and participating in panel-to-panel interviews as part of the selection process.
In one of those bidding sessions, right at the end of a lengthy evaluation of one aspect of the contractor's performance, my friend had a chance to speak with a person who used to be their manager and who had remained on the client side of the process. "Is this bidding process thing working for you guys?" he asked, "because on our side it's a nightmare. We can't help the people who need us most because we're stuck in front of computer screens filling in your hundreds of pages of information requests..." (Thanks, management consultants...). Apparently his former manager responded along the lines of, "We hate it. All of us. This is nothing but a waste of time and energy - and the worst part of all is that this wasted time is going to have a negative impact on your success rates, which we all know will happen, as a result of which this entire joke will make it easier for Westminster to say that the NHS is broken and we need external help from big, external healthcare companies. The whole thing is being used as a Trojan Horse to line up the NHS for a US-based takeover..."
Maybe a year after that, my friend took his own life.
He literally could not handle the emotional and psychological toll of what he saw every day, being done to harm helpless victims - children in need of help in one of the richest countries in the world. All in the name of forcing the UK's NHS - one time envy of the world - forced in to a state of abject failure, just so the politicians could claim the only possible solution would be to invite private healthcare companies in the "clean up the mess" and in so doing be rewarded with the post-Westminster directorships.
That path to riches might work for the gilded few.
But it is costing the lives of those most in need - and those who dedicated their lives to helping them.
-
-
Monday 21st September 2026 14:16 GMT Charlie Clark
Re: Usual path to riches for politicians and senior civil servants
An ageing population such as the UK's virtually guarantees higher social spending, especially pensions and healthcare for us all as we get older. At the same time as pensions are ring-fenced so, strangely, are inheritance taxes meaning that the taypayer doesn't benefit from passive asset price increases such as property. This isn't any kind of manifesto just point out that PAYG systems that do not include some kind of wealth tax, are increasing the burden of younger taxpayers who will not be able to "enjoy" the rise in property prices like their parents and grandparents did.
-
-
-
Friday 18th September 2026 13:18 GMT cyberdemon
Re: Usual path to riches for politicians and senior civil servants
> Next will be the totally unrelated awarding of plump contracts to the new employers at taxpayers' expense
That is already well underway..
They have their tentacles in the NHS, the police, now our energy system.. What's next? Schools? Water supplies? Courts?
-
-
-
Wednesday 23rd September 2026 15:43 GMT Regomised
Re: Orwell
Years ago I quoted that in the comments on some article in the Guardian (correcting someone who had badly mis-quoted it) and had several challenging my comment because apparently it didn't make sense as if it wasn't possible to tell them apart how would the creatures know when they were looking from pig to man and man to pig. Talk about completely missing the point! And the fact that it was a direct quote from one of the most significant dystopian-parody novels ever written had completely passed them by. All somewhat amusing given that Guardian readers like to regard themselves as highly educated...
-
-
Friday 18th September 2026 12:49 GMT MaChatma CoatGPT 2.0
Professor Nick Maynard
Maynard is a leading consultant surgeon at Oxford University Hospital. He sometimes spends months volunteering in Gaza and has done so for years. He noticed a pattern in sniper wounds inflicted on teenage boys at aid stations. One week it would be all head wounds. The next would be the chest. The next would be the genital area. He realised that these boys were being used as training data for IDF sniping. Palantir does AI stuff for the IDF. I wonder if these two things could be connected?
Enjoy your blood money, Mr Watson.
-
Friday 18th September 2026 14:47 GMT elsergiovolador
Re: Professor Nick Maynard
Palantir’s Federated Data Platform (FDP) supports the allocation of capacity for treating patients at NHS. Its functions include coordinating planned treatment, managing waiting lists and improving operating-theatre use.
Now imagine that government or Palantir do not like you and suddenly your urgent treatment gets postponed.
-
Saturday 19th September 2026 20:53 GMT Furious Reg reader John
Re: Professor Nick Maynard
Would that be the same Professor Nick Maynard who said that it was inconceivable that the Gaza hospitals were being used as Hamas bases, but then we find out hostages were held and killed in those hospitals. He also said that the malnutrition in Gaza was extreme, but so much food was going into Gaza that was impossible, and now the latest fashion in Gaza is to film yourself destroying food. So if he says something is happening, the exact opposite of that is probably happening.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Friday 18th September 2026 16:35 GMT elsergiovolador
Re: JFC...
Yes. The Serious Fraud Office is a non-ministerial government department with powers to investigate and prosecute serious or complex fraud, bribery and corruption under the Criminal Justice Act 1987. That is rather more than an advisory role.
The National Crime Agency explicitly describes itself as a “non-ministerial civil service department” in its 2026–27 remuneration evidence. Its published responsibilities include leading the UK law-enforcement response to bribery and corruption, and working with government departments to tackle public-sector corruption.
Then there is the Home Office’s Joint Anti-Corruption Unit, responsible for co-ordinating the response across government and law enforcement. This is not confined to prosecutable offences: the government’s own anti-corruption strategy recognises that corruption can involve breaches of integrity or professional standards without necessarily being illegal. JACU handles the policy and co-ordination side, rather than criminal prosecutions.
For procurements covered by the Procurement Act 2023, Cabinet Office guidance expressly lists “cancelling and re-running the procurement” as a response to conflicts of interest. Where a conflict gives a supplier an unfair advantage that cannot be remedied, exclusion is mandatory. The rules explicitly cover ministers and address perceptions too: where circumstances would reasonably suggest a conflict, even though none exists, authorities must record the steps taken or planned to demonstrate that. These safeguards do not depend on proving a criminal offence.
Separately, HM Treasury’s Managing Public Money requires accounting officers to uphold propriety, which encompasses ethics, standards of public conduct and good governance, not merely legality.
An accounting officer who concludes that proposed spending fails those standards must seek changes or, if the minister insists on proceeding, require a formal ministerial direction. The objection and direction are normally published and must be sent to parliamentary scrutiny bodies and the Comptroller and Auditor General. That is not an absolute civil-service veto, but it means a minister must formally override the objection rather than receive routine approval. And a ministerial direction cannot authorise unlawful action.
-
Friday 18th September 2026 22:30 GMT jdiebdhidbsusbvwbsidnsoskebid
Re: JFC...
Bit none of what Watson is doing is a crime, or fraud, or anything to do with commercial procurement. There didn't seem to be any bribery or corruption. Yes some of us commenting here seem to feel it is unethical. I think it's wrong that he can take employment whilst still maintaining his peerage, but it's certainly not illegal.
-
Sunday 20th September 2026 08:12 GMT Sproggit
Re: JFC...
But it should be.
The fact that certain actions of the tiny group of people who write our laws is apparently not illegal, when the same actions performed by employees or directors of regular companies would result in instant dismissal (most if not all written employment contracts in the UK include boilerplate language that prevents you from ‘moonlighting’ for others) is a reflection of the corruption in the legislative branch of UK government.
Let’s see…
Cash for Questions (Neil Hamilton)
Accepting a Ministerial Grace-and-Favour residence and then sub-letting the MP ‘second home’ and pocketing the income (Jack Straw)
Watching Porn and then submitting a claim for the cost via MP’s expenses (Jacqui Smith)
Expenses Abuse - claiming £1,645 for a floating ‘duck house’ (Sir Peter Viggers)
The list goes on. And on, and on, and on, and on, and on.
The reason the list is apparently endless is simply because no sitting Parliament has ever felt inclined to establish enforcement of laws that would be applied to mere mortals. People think that e.g. the National Audit Office has independent authority to investigate… but that’s a complete smokescreen.
The focus and priorities of the NAO are supposed to be independent, set by the Comptroller & Auditor General (C&AG), currently Gareth Davies, but the fact is that the postholder is required by law to “have regard to” requests from the Public Accounts Committee. In other words, MPs. MP’s who don’t have to tell him to refrain from investigating the MPs themselves, just to keep the postholder occupied with an endless sequence of other scandals.
Unless or until a robust set of laws, with penalties, are enacted; laws that make all these types of conduct illegal, this is going to continue.
-
-
-
-
Friday 18th September 2026 15:48 GMT jdiebdhidbsusbvwbsidnsoskebid
Re: JFC...
The civil service is there to serve the government, it is essentially the government's labour force. The job of policing things like this is, err, the police (after the parliamentary Committee on Standards maybe).
This all sound a bit dodgy though. Watson appears to have no technical background, having spent a few years in marketing and advertising before failing to graduate from university. He certainly didn't seem to have any executive leadership credibility beyond being a senior politician (which might actually be quite relevant to being a VP).
And of course, he's not resigned from the Lords, only taken leave (he is a life peer). So although he can't draw any salary or expenses He can still visit and schmooze his government colleges on behalf of his employer. I'd say there's a case to answer of abusing a public position unless he properly resigns his peerage.
-
Friday 18th September 2026 16:33 GMT cyberdemon
Re: JFC...
Not a downvoter.. But i don't think the civil service have much power to stop MPs engaging in sleaze anymore.. Remember Boris and his Henry VIII powers, his wilful breaking of international law "In a very specific and limited way", and his earlier "Interpretation Bill.." All designed to put MPs and especially the Executive, above the law.
"Take back control" actually meant "Hand control to the Executive" rather than to the country, or "To Hell with rules and safeguards, laws are for plebs. Let's pave the way for a future dictatorship where we the political class can do what we like and get stinking rich doing it, while the rest of the country suffers" and that's exactly what is playing out.
I'm not a Labour voter, I usually vote Lib Dem, but my -hope- is that Mr Burnham brings some integrity to the Labour party and may reverse some of the damage that Boris did, if it's not too late. Time will tell..
-
-
-
Wednesday 23rd September 2026 15:47 GMT Regomised
Re: JFC...
I find it rather difficult to understand why some people think that sleaze is only typical of one major political party (normally one opposed to their political beliefs). It doesn't take much research for it to be clear that it's endemic among MPs and in no way specific to any particular party or political orientation.
-
-
Friday 18th September 2026 15:03 GMT tiggity
Re: JFC...
It's just politician level sleaze - as my (now deceased) dad used to say about politicians "they all piss in the same pot".
Many decades ago there was more of an attempt to hide the bribes, corruption, fake jobs ("a few nominal hours a year "working" for a company but paid a metric fuck tonne of money for it), but in more recent years it has just become so much more brazen & politicians, of whatever party, just feel they do not need to hide anymore.
Labour have, for a long time, not been the party of the working class, so in addition to embracing policies that would have been unthinkable for them in the 70s, but now they are just Blue Labour - making a small pretence at being not quite as right wing as the Tories, but happily embracing the same levels of corruption seen in recent Tory governments / MPs
.. I'm the one with the spoiled ballot paper, as (in "my" constituency at least) all the options on the ballot paper have been shit for many years (my Labour membership was cancelled in the 90s when they got rid of Clause IV & fully cemented their transition to a tory-lite party)
-
-
Friday 18th September 2026 14:21 GMT anothercynic
An absolute shocker, NOT
Shame on Watson. Shame, shame, shame. May he never live this decision down.
Clearly Palantir is going for the "you know Burnham, right? Can you put a flea in his ear about our contract" kind of thing.
Like others say, I hope he enjoys the blood money, and I hope he never lives this down, ever.
-
Friday 18th September 2026 15:29 GMT Charlie Clark
Re: An absolute shocker, NOT
He should lose his peerage. This is a political gift to those who, as considered by the government of the time, have given distinguished service to the country and to be able to continue to do so in the second chamber of parliament. Taking up employment elsewhere is obviously no longer serving the country – though I guess this is debatable for any particular peer.
-
-
-
Sunday 20th September 2026 18:16 GMT Fruit and Nutcase
Groom of the stool
In the Tudor era, there was this position which I guess has some parallels to above duties, and, as these tech bros behave as if they are nobility...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groom_of_the_Stool#In_the_Tudor_era
-
-
Sunday 20th September 2026 14:31 GMT Fruit and Nutcase
Queue jumper*
"...Peter Thiel in private viewing of Bayeux tapestry"
https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2026/aug/31/british-museum-hosted-palantir-founder-peter-thiel-private-viewing-bayeux-tapestry
George Osborne has said he thought no one would find out about a private viewing of the Bayeux tapestry he organised for the tech billionaire Peter Thiel at the British Museum.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/sep/19/george-osborne-peter-thiel-bayeux-tapestry-visit
Thiel should have been told to buy a ticket and get in the queue like the rest of the public. His visit was even before the King and Queen had been shown around ahead of public viewing.
*Guests at One Aldwych hotel, where rooms cost more than £1,000 a night, are also able to get tickets without joining the online queues.
Old George was Chancellor of the Exchequer in David Cameron's time as PM, and then was editor of the Evening Standard for a while before becoming the chair of the British Museum
-
Monday 21st September 2026 07:54 GMT MrGreen
It’s a Big Club
Nothing will change till the uniparty ends.
It’s just one big scam. Labour and Tories are all in the Big Club.
Get in the club, find out where the tax money is going and buy loads of shares in those companies. Then make sure the tax money keeps being funnelled to the same companies. When it’s time for you to leave your MP role then go and work for the company you’ve directed loads of cash to.
-
Monday 21st September 2026 11:13 GMT Anonymous Coward
Congratulations Palantir - Route One to the PM
Guess who PM Andy Burnham’s BFF is? Clue – Burnham appointed her First Secretary of State, Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office on 20th July 2026. She’s the one who sits next to Burnham at Prime Minister Question Time, btw.
And guess who Tom Watson’s BFF in government is? Clue, it’s someone who was charged with fraud by false representation in 2024 and had to resign her Starmer Cabinet position. Someone who worked under Watson when he was Deputy Leader, who has reportedly a close personal friendship with Watson, and with whom share close political networks.
That’s right, the same person - Louise Haigh.
Quote from Wiki: “Haigh was one of the key figures in Labour party leadership and Prime Minister hopeful Andy Burnham's 2026 Makerfield by-election victory and his leadership campaign. The New Statesman reported that, consequently, Haigh had "more power than many of the colleagues she left behind in cabinet".
-
Wednesday 23rd September 2026 08:21 GMT StewartWhite
Tom Watson - Serial Liar and Political Opportunist
This is the same Tom Watson who abused parliamentary privilege to broadcast ridiculous and disgraceful lies from the convicted paedophile Carl Beech concerning Leon Brittan and other public figures, e.g. see https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/dec/21/tom-watson-apologises-in-lords-for-promoting-false-abuse-allegations-labour-deputy-carl-beech (from The Guardian so hardly a natural Brittan supporter).
So quite a good fit for Palantir then.
