A phrase that cuts both ways
George Monbiot’s Guardian column [1] opens with a neat piece of semantic jujitsu. Tom Watson, now at Palantir, asks whether we want “the rule of law” or “mob rule” to lead procurement practice. Monbiot replies that “there are two common meanings of mob rule. One is intimidation by crowds of thugs. The other is a pejorative term for democracy” [1]. He then suggests that “democratic transparency could be a genuine threat to certain contractors” [1].
This is a real Newspeak catch. Calling public objection “mob rule” recasts scrutiny as violence. Orwell’s point in “Politics and the English Language” was that vague, loaded words let people avoid looking at what they describe. The column spots that and says so.
Note: this is an opinion column, and the piece does not label itself as such in its text. We critique it as argument, not as reporting. We also have only this one source, and it relies on secondary reporting (the London Review of Books investigation, the Financial Times) that we have not seen.
The column’s own Newspeak problem
The word fight is sharper than the evidence that follows. Several sentences place things in the passive or agentless voice. “Doors were opened for it.” It “was invited back to Downing Street” [1]. Who opened the doors, and who invited whom, is left to implication. The column does name some actors (Mandelson’s Global Counsel, Boris Johnson, Dominic Cummings, Peter Thiel), but the connecting claim is mostly insinuation.
Then there is the aside: “I wouldn’t presume to speculate about what attracted Watson to the multibillion-dollar company” [1]. That is speculation performed through a disclaimer. Likewise, “You could almost believe that the real purpose of government was to do the bidding of corporations, foreign states and the ultra-rich” [1]. The “almost believe” construction invites the conclusion while keeping deniability. By the site’s own standard, that is a rhetorical move to flag, even when the target is deserving.
Specifics that deserve to be separated from mood
The column does contain checkable claims, attributed to others:
- Palantir “has landed contracts worth hundreds of millions” with bodies including the Ministry of Defence, police forces, the FCA and the NHS [1].
- A 2025 Starmer meeting at Palantir’s Washington showroom was, per the LRB authors, “never declared on transparency registers,” and No 10 “refused to say” whether Starmer knew Palantir was a Global Counsel client [1].
- A £241m MoD contract followed “without an open tender” [1].
- The NHS contract began at £1 in 2020 [1].
- NHS England has granted Palantir “unlimited access” to patient data “after official denials” [1].
The column also concedes that “Palantir’s contracts might have been awarded lawfully” [1]. That matters. Much of the piece is about access and appearance, not proven rule-breaking. Yet the sequence of anecdotes (meeting, then contract; lobbyist, then campaign) invites readers to infer causation that the column does not establish. We cannot tell from this text whether any of these steps broke a rule.
Where the Huxley problem lives
The tone is the tell. “What a world we live in.” The imagined gangs dragging civil servants off commuter trains. The closing line about “the mob rule of private business” [1]. It is witty, and it lands as outrage plus amusement. Huxley’s worry was a public that is entertained into acceptance. Here the column itself says the pattern is “always the same: a scandal, followed by a call to action, followed by … little or nothing” [1]. A reader who finishes it may feel informed and resigned, but still not know what “unlimited access” means technically, or which denials were issued.
There is also a juxtaposition worth naming. Palantir’s work for ICE and in Gaza, and Karp’s reply “Mostly terrorists, that’s true” [1], sit in the same stretch as the NHS data point. They show the company’s character as the column sees it, but they are not evidence about NHS data handling. The paragraph invites a guilt-by-association leap.
What a reader would need instead
- A plain label that this is commentary, and which claims come from the LRB and FT rather than the author’s own reporting.
- Palantir’s, Watson’s, Mandelson’s, Dalton’s and Jones’s responses. The column quotes Watson’s question but not any reply to the specific allegations.
- Whether the £241m non-tendered MoD award used a lawful exemption, and which procurement rules apply. The column says only “without an open tender” [1].
- What “unlimited access” means in practice, which officials issued the “official denials,” and how this compares with existing patient-data safeguards. The column notes identifiable data should be visible only to those involved in care or with consent [1], but does not test the arrangement against that.
- The status of the ethics and integrity commission’s July recommendations on lobbying transparency [1]. The column says they exist; it does not say whether the government has accepted them.
- An independent check. The column mentions a Commons science, innovation and technology committee warning on “vendor lock-in” [1]; that body’s own record would be the natural place to verify it.
Monbiot is right that “mob rule” is a slippery phrase. The same scrutiny should apply to “almost believe,” “wouldn’t presume to speculate,” and doors that open themselves.