UK government replaces Palantir software with internally-built refugee system

Post by Revisional_Sin » Fri, May 15, 2026, 3:52 PM UTC

skippyboxedhero wrote: post #127

flr03 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It doesn't escape the economy. This is the kind of bizarre left-wing isolationism/nationalism that seems to be rife amongst people who don't understand free markets. If you pay money to Palantir, they are providing a service in return. That service is investment in your own economy, you pay them and then you own the thing they produce. Money does not "escape", the same amount of money is there before and after. The r…

Post by jshier » Fri, May 15, 2026, 4:14 PM UTC

whimsicalism wrote: post #170

jappgar wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And this mistrust is deliberately sewn by right-wing politicians and media figures who are directly funded by government contractors.

I worked in the federal government once. Unfortunately, it really is that bad. They took weeks-month just to provision me a laptop.

Post by ilikerashers » Fri, May 15, 2026, 4:19 PM UTC

tim333 wrote: post #152

pjc50 wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So, £100k/year = bad, £120k/year via an external consultancy = good. Ding ding ding. This is all driven by ideological mistrust of the public sector, as you've pointed out and people are even defending in the comments.

> £100k/year = bad, £120k/year via an external consultancy = good actually kind of makes sense. The £600 a day is as long as you need it and can be stopped when you don't. A £100k government employee basically has a guaranteed job for life and gold plated pension.

Post by Henchman21 » Fri, May 15, 2026, 4:28 PM UTC

datsci_est_2015 wrote: post #136

rayiner wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not “ideological mistrust of the public sector.” It’s that government jobs aren’t subject to market forces so you need some sort of external controls, like pay scales. FDR, who can hardly be accused of distrusting the public sector, emphasized the importance of public control over government sector salaries: https://www.fdrlibrary.org/unions

Consultancies don’t appear to be subject to market forces either, judging by their complete dearth of talent and expertise. In other words, “rent seeking”. The only protection against pilfering of the public coffers appears to be strong cultural opposition to it, so exactly the opposite of what’s happening in the US, for example.

Post by philipallstar » Fri, May 15, 2026, 4:32 PM UTC

justin66 wrote: post #128

andsoitis wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> £100k/year = bad, £120k/year Just keep in mind that if you pay someone a salary of £100k, your expense for that employee is actually much higher. So £120k would be less expensive and you also don’t take on thr risk and cost of developing a system (you’re getting “off the shelf”).

Hopefully it goes without saying but the person you're responding to was just giving an example. The contractor vs. permanent employee pay gap absurdity they're highlighting in government contracting is often much more profound than 20%. 100% higher pay for contractors doing the equivalent work in the US isn't uncommon.