Comment by ChrisRR
4 hours ago
Developing a replacement system is still going to cost a hell of a lot. It's not like if you dropped palatir then we'd suddenly have a free drop-in replacement and everyone can have their fiver back
4 hours ago
Developing a replacement system is still going to cost a hell of a lot. It's not like if you dropped palatir then we'd suddenly have a free drop-in replacement and everyone can have their fiver back
You pay money to Palantir that money essentially escapes the economy, you develop a sovereign solution yes you pay millions even more but that goes into corporations and people actually living in the country, paying taxes and spending their coins here.
I would rather not hand mine or my neighbours' health data to a spy-tech firm, who will have unlimited access to their data[0].
Not having the system (it's not like it's already in use anyway) is always a good step in the right direction. And a replacement built-in UK will provide more jobs, more tax money, and digital sovereignty for UK.
https://www.digitalhealth.net/2026/05/palantir-to-be-granted...
When they first rolled out Universal Credit, they decided to do it using Microsoft Dynamics NAV.
It didn't work very well, so GDS rebuilt it in-house.
Have you considered just not building this kind of thing at all?
The NHS does have a problem that it is built as a collection of individual trusts all using their own IT systems and after decades has an issue with transferring data between trusts.
So that's why an interconnected system is required in order to share data between the trusts while maintaining compatibility with their existing processes