Scaramango 🥭

The Undeclared Meeting. The Shared Client. The £750 Million Contract There is a moment in this affair when the accumulating details stop looking like coincidence and start looking like something else entirely. Sunday's revelation about the Palantir meeting may be that moment. On February 27 2025, Keir Starmer and Peter Mandelson visited Palantir's headquarters in Washington. Eleven defence personnel attended alongside Britain's defence attaché to the United States. A presentation was given. A tour followed. The Ministry of Defence described it as a meeting. Downing Street says it was not a meeting and therefore required no declaration under the ministerial code. Both positions are on the public record and only one of them can be accurate. The meeting was not logged in Starmer's transparency returns, while other engagements from the same trip were. Breaking the ministerial code is widely regarded as a resignation offence. Set aside the semantic argument about what constitutes a meeting. Focus on what was present in that room. Starmer. Mandelson. Defence officials. And the executives of a technology company that was, at the time, a registered client of Global Counsel, the lobbying firm Mandelson co-founded and in which he held a 24 percent stake while serving as Britain's ambassador to the United States. Global Counsel had been hired by Palantir in 2018 specifically to help procure UK government contracts. Mandelson retained his shareholding when appointed ambassador. The connection between Global Counsel and Palantir was reportedly absent from his vetting. Later in 2025, Palantir won a five year £750 million contract with the Ministry of Defence. Its MoD contract had already tripled in size without due process or competition. Palantir also holds a £330 million NHS contract and a total of 34 contracts with public sector bodies. The question Alex Burghart has put publicly is the right one. Who arranged the meeting, what was discussed, and what did Global Counsel's client stand to gain? A third question deserves equal prominence. Did Starmer know, when he visited Palantir's headquarters with Mandelson at his side, that Palantir was a registered client of the firm in which his ambassador held a substantial financial interest? Downing Street has declined to confirm whether Mandelson was directly involved in arranging the visit. The government says there are robust processes in place to ensure contracts are awarded fairly. Palantir says its latest MoD contract was first discussed before Mandelson became ambassador and signed more than three months after he was sacked. Both statements may be technically accurate. Neither addresses the central problem. A British ambassador with a direct financial interest in a lobbying firm facilitated a meeting between the Prime Minister and that firm's defence contractor client. The meeting was not declared. No minutes were taken. The contractor subsequently won a contract worth three quarters of a billion pounds. Each element of that sequence has an innocent explanation available to it. The combination does not. A man whose financial interests were supposed to be held in a blind trust while he served as the Crown's representative in Washington was present at an undeclared meeting between his Prime Minister and his lobbying firm's most significant defence client. Whether that constitutes a conflict of interest is not a complicated question. Whether it constitutes something worse is now a matter for Scotland Yard, which has been asked to widen its investigation into Mandelson to include the Palantir meeting. Starmer is already facing a privileges committee referral for misleading Parliament. His own Cabinet Office chief has contradicted his account of the vetting process. A senior government source says the wheels have stopped turning. The Palantir meeting was not declared. The contract was awarded. The question of who benefited and who knew is not going away.

The Undeclared Meeting. The Shared Client. The £750 Million Contract There is a moment in this affair when the accumulating details stop looking like coincidence and start looking like something else entirely. Sunday's revelation about the Palantir meeting may be that moment. On February 27 2025, Keir Starmer and Peter Mandelson visited Palantir's headquarters in Washington. Eleven defence personnel attended alongside Britain's defence attaché to the United States. A presentation was given. A tour followed. The Ministry of Defence described it as a meeting. Downing Street says it was not a meeting and therefore required no declaration under the ministerial code. Both positions are on the public record and only one of them can be accurate. The meeting was not logged in Starmer's transparency returns, while other engagements from the same trip were. Breaking the ministerial code is widely regarded as a resignation offence. Set aside the semantic argument about what constitutes a meeting. Focus on what was present in that room. Starmer. Mandelson. Defence officials. And the executives of a technology company that was, at the time, a registered client of Global Counsel, the lobbying firm Mandelson co-founded and in which he held a 24 percent stake while serving as Britain's ambassador to the United States. Global Counsel had been hired by Palantir in 2018 specifically to help procure UK government contracts. Mandelson retained his shareholding when appointed ambassador. The connection between Global Counsel and Palantir was reportedly absent from his vetting. Later in 2025, Palantir won a five year £750 million contract with the Ministry of Defence. Its MoD contract had already tripled in size without due process or competition. Palantir also holds a £330 million NHS contract and a total of 34 contracts with public sector bodies. The question Alex Burghart has put publicly is the right one. Who arranged the meeting, what was discussed, and what did Global Counsel's client stand to gain? A third question deserves equal prominence. Did Starmer know, when he visited Palantir's headquarters with Mandelson at his side, that Palantir was a registered client of the firm in which his ambassador held a substantial financial interest? Downing Street has declined to confirm whether Mandelson was directly involved in arranging the visit. The government says there are robust processes in place to ensure contracts are awarded fairly. Palantir says its latest MoD contract was first discussed before Mandelson became ambassador and signed more than three months after he was sacked. Both statements may be technically accurate. Neither addresses the central problem. A British ambassador with a direct financial interest in a lobbying firm facilitated a meeting between the Prime Minister and that firm's defence contractor client. The meeting was not declared. No minutes were taken. The contractor subsequently won a contract worth three quarters of a billion pounds. Each element of that sequence has an innocent explanation available to it. The combination does not. A man whose financial interests were supposed to be held in a blind trust while he served as the Crown's representative in Washington was present at an undeclared meeting between his Prime Minister and his lobbying firm's most significant defence client. Whether that constitutes a conflict of interest is not a complicated question. Whether it constitutes something worse is now a matter for Scotland Yard, which has been asked to widen its investigation into Mandelson to include the Palantir meeting. Starmer is already facing a privileges committee referral for misleading Parliament. His own Cabinet Office chief has contradicted his account of the vetting process. A senior government source says the wheels have stopped turning. The Palantir meeting was not declared. The contract was awarded. The question of who benefited and who knew is not going away.