Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

UK government replaces Palantir software with internally-built refugee system

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 219 posts

Re: UK government replaces Palantir software with internally-built refugee system

#191

Post by convolvatron »

InsideOutSanta wrote: post #43
SXX wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because "nation states" are not one making decision either. It's done by one specific career bureaucrat or group of them and even best of people who work on such positions usually choose it because of job security and stability. Spending 10x more on IBM or Palantir can't get them fired, but trying to build something in-house their organization don't have competence for can get them fired. And this is even if you don'…

> It's done by one specific career bureaucrat or group Almost all governments have a legally defined public procurement framework. If this is overridden, it's pretty much always by elected politicians, not by regular government employees.

I've worked both sides of a 'transparent open-process lowest cost bid' for the US government, and it's pretty easy to get the outcome you want. a lot of the time its not even for reasons of overt corruption, just that that's the vendor you've chosen to work with.

Re: UK government replaces Palantir software with internally-built refugee system

#192

Post by pjc50 »

roenxi wrote: post #140
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.

Just wandering in to this as a relative political bystander, but as I look at the polling out of the UK [0] I see that the party currently leading is some group called "REF" and I gather they did pretty well in the latest round of elections. I assume they're an old-established party who represent the deep contentment the British have with how the public service has been run. I suppose they do seem a little unpopular,…

While you've clearly mastered the tone of supercilious sarcasm that is the mainstay of British politics, I should point out to the audience that the Farage party is entirely the billionaire and foreign propaganda party, which is why they are successful.

See eg https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c072prlxlddo

Meanwhile, at least eight of their councilors elected last week have quit already due to comedy levels of misconduct. https://www.markpack.org.uk/176783/how-many-councillors-has-...

Re: UK government replaces Palantir software with internally-built refugee system

#193

Post by lII1lIlI11ll »

benj111 wrote: post #29
Centigonal wrote: post #9

Palantir is very expensive. This is because: 1. they aim to deliver product company margins with a consulting-heavy model. 2. your software purchase funds a cadre of "free" FDEs and deployment strategists who customize your install, build a bunch of data pipes/transforms, and talk to people to figure out what all the data means. This could be a good deal if your tech org is not very competent at integrating your data…

I never understood why nation states pay outside companies for this stuff. You need the expertise to actually evaluate what you're getting anyway. Incentives are in no way aligned. At the state level you have the scale to do it in house.

UK is not a "nation state".

Re: UK government replaces Palantir software with internally-built refugee system

#194

Post by roenxi »

pjc50 wrote: post #192
roenxi wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just wandering in to this as a relative political bystander, but as I look at the polling out of the UK [0] I see that the party currently leading is some group called "REF" and I gather they did pretty well in the latest round of elections. I assume they're an old-established party who represent the deep contentment the British have with how the public service has been run. I suppose they do seem a little unpopular,…

While you've clearly mastered the tone of supercilious sarcasm that is the mainstay of British politics, I should point out to the audience that the Farage party is entirely the billionaire and foreign propaganda party, which is why they are successful. See eg https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c072prlxlddo Meanwhile, at least eight of their councilors elected last week have quit already due to comedy levels of misc…

So, in a moment of clarification, your official position on this one is going to be that the 2 majors are at high risk of being knocked into 3rd/4th place by the greens, and this isn't a reflection on their failures of governance over the decades?

I'm not actually sure what you're proposing you think the major reasons are, since that article is just a reminder that people with money have noticed what a disaster the EU is too, not just average voters.

> While you've clearly mastered the tone of supercilious sarcasm that is the mainstay of British politics...

I will admit a feeling of loss that I couldn't work in "unstained escutcheon" but that would be too obscure a reference. I doubt Rees-Mogg would have baulked.

> Meanwhile, at least eight of their councilors elected last week have quit already due to comedy levels of misconduct.

And a supplementary question - do you feel this is "ideological mistrust of the public sector" coming through? Or is it something else when you do it?

Re: UK government replaces Palantir software with internally-built refugee system

#195

Post by anakaine »

PaulRobinson wrote: post #84
dust-jacket wrote: post #42

Having spent time working in UK healthcare tech, I never understood why everyone was lining up to throw buckets of money at Palantir. Quite apart from being obviously evil and so on, none of their solutions were actually very good. Unfortunately, it's hard to escape the feeling that friends in high places, some lobbying and some er... reciprocal back scratching might have been instrumental. See also senior staff at N…

I say this as somebody who has worked vendor side in UK public sector for a number of years. It's policy. It's official Whitehall policy. As a department you can't hire programmers at £100k/year, because that pushes them way, way higher than civil service bands allow. But you can pay a "Systems Integrator" - a consultancy like Cap Gemini, Deloitte, Fujitsu - £600/day for the same programmer in the same seat. So, £100…

Im in government elsewhere, and the same problems prevail. Fortunately my department had the executive foresight and skill to build a group internally who could provide digital architecture, engineering, development, security, and run projects. There is still a contractor base, but its only about 20% of the head count.

Re: UK government replaces Palantir software with internally-built refugee system

#196

Post by justin66 »

philipallstar wrote: post #179
justin66 wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Pay yes, but not cost.

That’s just delusional.

Re: UK government replaces Palantir software with internally-built refugee system

#197

Post by andsoitis »

justin66 wrote: post #196
philipallstar wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pay yes, but not cost.

That’s just delusional.

Why do you say that? The cost to a company for an employee ranges anywhere from 120% to 200% of the compensation paid to the employee.

Re: UK government replaces Palantir software with internally-built refugee system

#198

Post by bigfatkitten »

rayiner wrote: post #131
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.

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

They absolutely are subject to market forces — the labour market.

Try hiring 100 software developers at civil service rates. You’ll get maybe 10 very talented people who are in it for “the mission” or for other ideological reasons, and about 90 who would be unemployable anywhere else.

And that’s after you’ve already excluded 95% of the market with citizenship and location requirements, suitability to hold a security clearance etc.

Re: UK government replaces Palantir software with internally-built refugee system

#200

Post by zipy124 »

philipallstar wrote: post #180
zipy124 wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The salary isn't that out of line for a mid-level developer nationwide, but yes I would expect it to be higher for the southern location. They could justify the salary if it was fully remote. Bear in mind there is a 23.7% pension contribution from the employer, so it's a roughly £62-70k total comp for a mid-level role. Edit: Actually though, in reality I would expect a salary bump to work in the public sector to enco…

The pension contribution is excellent, but it doesn't help you buy a house. It would be better to offer higher salary, which the employee can still choose to pump into the pension, for flexibility.

Well, a higher pension contribution means you don't have to save as much of your take home pay for when you get old, allowing you to spend more of what you earn theoretically, but I get your point yes.

The reason they can't offer the higher salary instead is government pensions are un-funded usually, hence their 20-30% contribution is actually just a commitment to pay you much much later, they don't actually put anything into a protected pot for you.

Post reply on HN