Greater Manchester Says No to Palantir's NHS Deal
· music
The Single English County Saying No to Palantir
The UK government’s £300 million deal with Palantir has sparked controversy, but one county has already taken a bold stance. Greater Manchester, home to over 3 million people, has refused to adopt Palantir’s “federated data platform” (FDP), choosing instead to stick with its own in-house Analytics and Data Science Platform (ADSP).
The decision is not just about technology; it’s a reflection of the deep-seated trust issues within the NHS. The Palantir deal has become a lightning rod for controversy due to the company’s ties to the US government and its involvement in sensitive projects like border control and military operations.
Greater Manchester’s decision goes beyond politics, raising fundamental questions about who should be running Britain’s healthcare data. Should it be a foreign firm with close ties to the US administration or British officials accountable to their constituents? The answer seems clear: when it comes to sensitive health information, trust is paramount – and Palantir has struggled to build that trust.
Palantir’s advocates claim its FDP revolutionizes healthcare data management, allowing for seamless sharing of information across different care settings. However, despite being rolled out nationwide, only 139 of around 200 trusts are currently “live” with Palantir’s technology. Those that have resisted, like Greater Manchester, are using it for limited purposes only.
The FDP is a symbol of the NHS’s willingness to surrender its data sovereignty to foreign interests. However, Palantir’s defenders argue that the benefits far outweigh concerns about trust or accountability. But who are these champions of Palantir? Some advocates, like Stephen Childs, head of healthcare partner at Palantir, have been using NHS staff as unwitting testimonials for their own platform.
This is more than just marketing spin; it’s a reflection of the deep-seated power imbalance between tech giants and vulnerable public institutions. When the NHS relies on foreign software for its most sensitive data, who really benefits? Not the patients or clinicians but Palantir’s shareholders.
Greater Manchester’s ADSP has been quietly gaining traction as a trusted and effective solution. Its strengths lie in incorporating primary care data not available on Palantir’s platform, making it easier for local authorities to develop targeted tools and analyses. And because it was developed in-house, it can be reconfigured more easily – allowing for greater flexibility and adaptability.
What really sets the ADSP apart is its deep public trust. Developed over multiple years, this trust has been fostered through transparency, community engagement, and accountability. In contrast, Palantir’s FDP has struggled to build that same level of trust – and it shows in its limited adoption rates.
As the UK government deliberates on whether to terminate the Palantir deal early, they would do well to heed Greater Manchester’s example. The ADSP might not be a silver bullet for Britain’s healthcare data woes but offers a crucial lesson: that trust is paramount when it comes to sensitive health information.
The NHS should be wary of surrendering its sovereignty to foreign interests and instead focus on building homegrown solutions that prioritize transparency, accountability, and community engagement. Anything less would be a betrayal of the public’s trust – and a recipe for disaster.
Palantir might have influential figures within the NHS backing it, but it faces stiff resistance from those who understand the importance of data sovereignty. As the UK government weighs its options, they should remember that there are two sides to every story – and that sometimes, the truth is not what you’re told.
The real power play here isn’t about technology or politics; it’s about trust. Will Britain’s healthcare data be controlled by foreign interests accountable only to their shareholders? Or will it remain in British hands, governed by officials answerable to their constituents? The choice is clear – and Greater Manchester has already made its decision.
Reader Views
- IOImani O. · indie musician
The real question here is: what's driving the push for Palantir in the NHS? Is it about genuinely improving patient care, or is it about further eroding our national sovereignty and data security? The Greater Manchester decision highlights the elephant in the room – a lack of transparency in how these deals are made. We need to know who stands to gain from this partnership and what strings come attached. The UK government's £300 million commitment to Palantir should be viewed as an investment in the American tech firm, not a public service.
- TSThe Stage Desk · editorial
It's refreshing to see Greater Manchester take a stand against Palantir's NHS deal, but let's not forget that this decision is also a reflection of the patchwork IT landscape in the UK. The fact that Palantir's FDP has only been adopted by 139 out of 200 trusts raises questions about its scalability and adaptability to different healthcare systems. While Greater Manchester may be saying no to Palantir, it's unclear what this means for their existing Analytics and Data Science Platform - will they need to invest in costly upgrades or integration efforts to make up for lost ground?
- KJKris J. · music critic
Greater Manchester's refusal to sign on with Palantir's FDP is a breath of fresh air in this sordid saga. But let's not get too carried away - the county's own ADSP might be seen as little more than a repackaged version of Palantir's tech. What's really at stake here is the NHS's willingness to compromise its data sovereignty, regardless of who's running the show. We need to question whether this kind of tech really revolutionizes healthcare or just creates new channels for foreign interests to exploit our sensitive health information. The devil's in the details, and we should be scrutinizing them - not just Palantir's motives but also those of our own officials, who seem all too eager to surrender control over our most intimate data.