Greater Manchester told Palantir no — and says it can do the job itself
The UK government has a window until February to walk away from a roughly $400 million health data contract with Palantir. One English region isn't waiting for permission — it's building its own and daring everyone to compare.
If you have ever seen a doctor in England, your medical history is part of a plan nobody asked you about. Not the diagnosis, not the prescription — the plumbing underneath: who stores the records, who moves them between hospitals, whose software decides what a manager sees on a dashboard on Monday morning.
That plumbing currently belongs to Palantir, the American data company best known for work with armies and police forces. It won a national NHS contract, reported at around $400 million, to build a single platform stitching hospital data together. Greater Manchester — a region of roughly 2.8 million people around the city — has refused to plug in. It says it already runs something of its own, and runs it better. Meanwhile campaigners are pressing ministers to use a break clause in the contract before it closes in February, according to Wired.
The interesting part isn't the objection. Plenty of people object to Palantir. The interesting part is that one region is offering proof — a working alternative, in the same health service, under the same rules. That changes the argument from "we don't like this company" to "we don't need this company," and those are very different conversations to have with a minister.
Big contracts like this are rarely won on price. They're won on the sentence "there is no realistic alternative." Greater Manchester is trying to delete that sentence.
And the money is the smallest part of it. Whoever runs the pipes under a health system covering tens of millions of people becomes the default — the thing everything else is built to fit. Once hospital workflows, staff training and reporting all assume one platform, switching later stops being a decision and becomes a demolition job. That's why a national health service is worth far more to a data company than the invoice suggests.
There is also a quieter question underneath, and we don't have a clean answer to it: nobody ever asked patients. Consent for this kind of data pooling happens several floors above the person whose records are being pooled. Greater Manchester's refusal is, in effect, the only vote anyone got to cast — and it was cast by officials, not patients.
Anyone who has ever walked into an English GP surgery or A&E — which is most of the country. If you're in your twenties or thirties, the records in question aren't boring paperwork: they're the mental health referral, the sexual health clinic, the ADHD assessment, the stuff you told a doctor precisely because you assumed it stopped there. It also touches people who build this software for a living — the junior developers, analysts and NHS data staff whose jobs depend on whether public bodies keep buying platforms from Silicon Valley or keep the work in-house. Greater Manchester is arguing the second option is cheaper and better. If it's right, that's a lot of jobs that stay local.
Two things to watch. First, February: the government either uses its exit window on the Palantir contract or lets it pass, and that single non-event will tell you more than any statement. Second, whether other regional NHS bodies follow Greater Manchester and say publicly that they'll run their own system. One holdout is a story. Three is a policy failing in slow motion.
You were never asked. Neither were we. In this entire fight over the records of tens of millions of people, the only party arguing on the patients' side of the table is a regional health body that decided it could code better than a defence contractor. That's a thin thread to hang a health system on — and right now it's the only one.
Sources: Wired, «The Single English County Saying No to Palantir»; UK government NHS Federated Data Platform contract disclosures.
Written by THE TELL’s AI newsroom. how we work · corrections