The May meeting discussed aspects of the local elections and Palantir
May 2026
First we had to start the meeting on a sad note to record the death of Philip Potter who was a regular attendee. He died aged 97. Phil was an active contributor to debates and he was often able to add recollections of his time in Palestine at the time of the formation of Israel. We will miss him. Funeral is on 15 May.
Today’s debate took place on the Saturday following the local elections which have seen some dramatic results. It was a grim day for the Labour party who lost nearly 1,500 councillors, the Conservatives did not do too well either but Reform on the other had, achieved massive gains. Plaid Cymru won most seats in Wales and the SNP were successful in Scotland.
This led to our first half question: Does the success of Reform and Nigel Farage truly reflect the beliefs and attitudes of the British people?
The first observation was that people seemed to want change and many did not feel they were getting it with the current government. However, it was pointed out that they have yet to be two years in government and was it too soon to judge them? After all, despite U turns and policy mistakes, a number of changes had been made.
An interesting aspect was that there have been serious questions asked about the £5m gift Nigel Farage had received but which he had not declared. They have provided various reasons (to provide personal safety being one) but the Guardian’s revelations are likely to lead to some kind of investigation. The point being made however is this did not seem to affect voting with stonking gains for Reform.
It has been noted by commentators and at the café that many of those who voted for Reform were those who supported Brexit. This would seem to represent some kind of mindset.
As far as Labour were concerned several noted that they were voted in on a platform of change and many felt that there had not been enough or they were not experiencing it. Someone said however that we seem to live in an ‘instant fix’ society, a bit like an Amazon delivery – you voted for a new party and change arrives 24 hours later. But what change? There were many calls for ‘change’ but what does it mean and if and when it comes, will you like it? [People always seem to assume change means change for the better, but what if – for you – it means change for the worse?]. It was noted that 50 people own half the wealth of the country, why has Sir Keir not done more to change this? [Some data on wealth ownership can be found here. This broadly supports that statement].
It was pointed out that parties lose elections and part of why Labour did so badly is that many did not turn out to vote for them. Others voted Green or LibDem to keep out Reform. Refugees and immigrants were a major factor and it was suggested that Sir Keir would never out reform Reform. Someone suggested we should just ignore them – a bit difficult in view of the media attention they get!
‘Sir Keir has the charisma of a filing cabinet’
It wasn’t long before Sir Keir’s lack of charisma was noted. The public do not like him it is suggested. People are attracted by the easy manner of Nigel Farage and find Sir Keir to be stodgy. He never says anything humorous. [One of our most successful prime ministers was Clem Attlee who had minimal charisma].
The immense social changes in our society were noted. Where once there was solidarity with the unions for example, that has now largely gone. The two party system was no longer a reflection of how our society is structured now. However, it was suggested that the two party system may be dead but the two values system isn’t.
It was suggested that Reform’s reputation may take a hit once they actually begin to run local authorities and find out how difficult it is. This was questioned by someone with experience of working for a LA. The room for manoeuvre is limited since most expenditure is mandated by government and the amount of discretionary spend (i.e. where councils are free to decide) is limited and has diminished markedly in recent years. Officers will try to make things work in spite of the efforts of councillors, Reform or otherwise.
Quite what Reform stands for is not altogether clear it was said. It seemed to be paradoxically, a party run by millionaires claiming to be the party of the people. Someone said by contrast, that it was clear: they were against things like Europe, immigration and net zero.
Was Reform a ‘one man band’ someone asked? Would the party survive if Farage was no more for some reason? Part of the reason – maybe the major reason – for Nigel Farage’s success is that he speaks clearly and makes his points succinctly. He uses simple language. You may not agree with them but he puts them across well. This contrasted with Sir Keir’s inability to express himself in clear terms. There were echoes with the Brexit debate where those arguing for us to leave were so much better than the Remainers at putting their points across.
Media
As ever in our debates, the role of the media is a factor to consider. Although, it was noted, the LibDems have 72 seats in parliament, media interest focuses on Reform with just a handful. Evan Davies was mentioned (BBC PM programme presenter) who’s interviewing style was ‘too nice’. Someone thought an interview of Farage by Nick Robinson was ‘outrageous’. It was noted that Farage does not like being interviewed [his responses to the £5m contribution shows him to be quite tetchy]. There was a general consensus that there was low trust in our media landscape.
The ‘rich men in suits’ argument surfaced again and that our current politics was ‘an outpouring of toxic masculinity’.
Did we answer the question? Yes and no. The first difficulty is deciding what the beliefs of the British people are. That they are dissatisfied is obvious but with a variety of parties gaining votes it is not at all clear that Reform is the whole answer. The fickle nature of the voter is a factor, after all it is not yet 2 years since Labour won a resounding majority. There appears to have been a lot of tactical voting with people voting for party X in the hope of stopping party Y rather than for something. So on balance the answer has to be ‘no’ and Reform does not represent some kind of consensus of beliefs by the British people.
The second part of the discussion was the question: Do we want Palantir to have a greater role in the NHS? There are many who seem unaware of the Palantir issue so this link fills in some gaps. There is a piece in the Times in favour of the firm. There is a post about effects on human rights. Palantir was founded by Peter Thiel (of PayPal) and is able to collect and process huge quantities of disparate information and provide ‘solutions’ or ‘answers’ to governments and others. It’s technology can do what other systems have failed to do. It is used by ICE in the US and the IDF in Israel. It is being used by the NHS in the UK. This is an article concerning the extraordinary not to say alarming remarks by its chief executive recently.
Why are we using them it was asked? The answer is provided in The Blunders of Government by Anthony King and Ivor Crewe (pub. One World, 2015). This details the manifold failures of attempts to introduce technology into aspects of British life. Palantir offered an off-the-shelf system that works.
We were reminded of the PFI system which has left the health service among others with massive debts.
We quickly got to the essence of the problem with employing this firm and the conundrum facing government. It is a system that works (to a point at least) and is available now. It was offered to the NHS without charge a fact of obvious interest to the Minister. ‘Beware of Greeks bearing gifts’ someone said. The problems however are the questions of information and who owns it, transparency, control and confidentiality. In addition, the question of who benefits from the vast store of information that the NHS can provide.
As the book explains, governments have not been adept at placing these contracts and the questions remain unanswered. Indeed it was noted that there is no contract between the firm and the NHS. This was another example of an American company, over which we have no control or oversight, operating here.
Some were not worried by their information being held by the firm. They saw the benefits of analysing the trove of data and its likely benefit to the service in better treatment.
Some thought that better integration of information – between GP practices and hospitals for example – would be of benefit. However, Palantir will not be tackling this. Integrating all elements of the NHS is still a long way off.
There was no question that analysing the information would be of immense value. But are we as taxpayers willing to foot the bill? We frequently hear politicians and others say ‘we need more doctors and nurses’. We never hear them say ‘we need more system analysts’. So was this an example of a firm offering a solution that we are unwilling to pay for?
Another worry was the link to drug companies. This was not fully articulated but was probably a worry that the information would be sold to such companies.
Two interesting and topical debates. Our next meeting is on 13th at 10:00 as usual. To ask again: is anyone interested in joining our committee?
Peter Curbishley
Salisbury Democracy Alliance 
Leave a comment