Skip to main content
Stories Constituencies Map About YouTube Substack Bluesky Twitter/X Podcast RSS
Episode 126

Kaveh

Cheadle  |  NHS / Healthcare  |  5 May 2026
Kaveh is a fictional character, but what they went through is happening across North West today. This is their story. In Cheadle, NHS workforce planning has broken the connection between people who want to train as nurses and the wards that desperately need them. The training places exist, the candidates exist, but Treasury spending controls treat investment in healthcare workers as a cost to be minimised rather than the means by which skilled nurses reach patients. This is what happened when Kaveh tried to change careers.

I grew up in Bramhall, just down the road from here, and after university I spent three years pushing papers around in private healthcare administration. It was steady work, but I never felt like I was actually helping anyone. The turning point came when my younger brother was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes at seventeen. I spent weeks with him in hospital during those early admissions, watching him learn to manage his condition, and I was struck by how the NHS nurses worked. They weren't just monitoring his blood sugar or administering insulin. They were teaching him how to live with this thing, showing him he could still have the future he'd planned. I realised I wanted to be on that side of healthcare, working directly with patients instead of shuffling invoices.

So in 2019, I applied for nursing training through Health Education England North West. I'd done my research, knew the process, scored well on all the assessments. The interview went brilliantly. I could see myself on those wards, finally doing work that mattered. Then came the letter: no funded places available this year, despite my strong application. Try again next year, they said. It was disappointing, but these things happen. I kept working in admin, saved up some money, and told myself 2020 would be my year.

2020 came. I reapplied, went through the whole process again. Same assessments, same interviews, same enthusiasm. This time the letter was more direct: "The training budget has been cut due to Treasury constraints." That phrase stuck with me. Treasury constraints. As if the Treasury was some external force, like the weather, that Health Education England had no control over. I accepted it at the time. It sounded reasonable. Everyone was talking about tight budgets and difficult decisions. I told my brother I'd try again the following year.

But by 2021, I was getting frustrated. I contacted Stockport NHS Foundation Trust directly, thinking maybe there was another route in through clinical apprenticeships. The person on the phone was sympathetic but firm: "You need to go through Health Education England. That's how the system works." Back to the same organisation that had already turned me down twice. I started to wonder if I was missing something, if there was some qualification I didn't have or some criterion I wasn't meeting.

That's when I met Sarah, a lecturer at Manchester Metropolitan University, at a career fair in Stockport. I told her my story, and her face changed. She looked almost angry. "We have 200 unfilled nursing training places this year," she said. "Two hundred. We've got the lecturers, we've got the clinical placements arranged with local hospitals, we've got people like you who want to train. But Health Education England can't fund them because their budget was capped by the Treasury."

I stood there trying to process what she'd just told me. There were training places. There were qualified applicants. There were hospitals crying out for more nurses. But somehow, there was "no money" to connect these things together. Sarah explained it like she'd had this conversation many times before: "The government treats workforce investment like a household expense. They act like they need to find the money from somewhere else before they can spend it on training nurses."

That evening, I walked past Manchester Royal Infirmary, where my brother had been treated. The same hospital that was supposedly understaffed. The same hospital that would have training places for student nurses if Health Education England had been allowed to fund them. I could see the building where those 200 people could have been learning to become nurses. I could see the wards where trained nurses were working double shifts because there weren't enough staff. The people existed. The building existed. The need existed. What exactly was it that "there was no money" for?

I started to understand that the constraint wasn't real in the way I'd thought. The UK government issues the pound. It doesn't need to find pounds from somewhere else before it spends them into existence. Every time Health Education England said "the budget has been cut," they were really saying "the Treasury has decided not to spend the money that would train the nurses that the NHS needs." That's not an accounting problem. It's a political decision dressed up as an accounting problem.

I tried one more time in 2022, because I'm nothing if not persistent. Same result, same language: "funding constraints," "difficult fiscal environment," "prioritising existing commitments." By then, I could translate what they were really saying: we have chosen not to spend the pounds that would turn you into a nurse, even though the hospitals need nurses and you want to be one. We are treating the currency we issue as though it's scarce, even when the resources to train you are sitting idle.

I'm still here in Cheadle, still working in healthcare administration, still watching the system from the wrong side. But I understand something now that I didn't understand when I started this journey. Every time someone told me "there is no funding," they were not describing a fact about the world. They were describing a choice made by people who had alternatives. The government that prints the notes and mints the coins told me it couldn't find enough of them to train people who were standing right there, ready to work.

The real question was never about money. It was about whether the people existed, whether the skills could be taught, whether the training places were available. They were. All of them. The excuse was not a fact. It was a choice wrapped in the language of impossibility. The same logic as a household saying "we can't afford it," except a household doesn't issue its own currency. The government does. The limit was never the money. The limit was the willingness to spend it into the places and people who needed it.

I used to think my story was about bad timing, about applying in the wrong years, about a system under pressure making tough choices. Now I know it's the story of every constituency where people and needs exist side by side while someone in Westminster says the cupboard is bare. It's not my story alone. It's the story of everyone who was told the resources didn't exist when they could see them with their own eyes.

10th decile
Deprivation decile (1 = most deprived) among 543 English constituencies
low
Documented funding gap severity
What just happened

Fake Experts

What Kaveh experienced has a name.

Using unqualified or misleading sources to manufacture doubt about what the data clearly shows.

What Kaveh experienced has a name: Fake Experts. This technique works by citing economists or commentators who treat the household budget myth as self-evident, as though repeating it makes it true. Consider how tobacco companies once paraded doctors in white coats to claim cigarettes were safe. The authority of the expert was used to legitimise claims that served corporate interests, not scientific truth. Today, when NHS workforce planning is constrained by "Treasury limits," we hear the same pattern: "Economists say we cannot spend more on health without causing inflation."

Which economists? The profession is divided. Many macroeconomists argue the binding constraint is real capacity, not currency. "Economists say" without naming them is an appeal to unnamed authority. The fake experts are those who present the household budget analogy as settled economic law when it is contested theory. They cite the authority of economics itself to avoid naming actual economists who might disagree with them. Real economists know that a currency-issuing government faces different constraints than a household.

In Kaveh's story, Health Education England treated Treasury spending limits as natural laws rather than policy choices. The UK government issues its own currency. It does not need to find pounds before it spends them. The real constraint is resources: people, skills, training facilities, time. And in Cheadle, those resources were sitting idle. The resources existed. The people existed. The decision not to connect them was political, not financial.
Reality check
"Economists say we cannot spend more on health without causing inflation."
Which economists? The profession is divided. Many macroeconomists argue the binding constraint is real capacity, not currency. 'Economists say' without naming them is an appeal to unnamed authority.

Sources

Office for National Statistics
English Indices of Deprivation — gov.uk
NOMIS Labour Market Statistics
Official labour market data — nomisweb.co.uk
Charity Commission
Register of Charities — charitycommission.gov.uk
360Giving
GrantNav grants database — threesixtygiving.org
Disclosure Kaveh is a fictional character. Their situation is drawn entirely from official statistics. The institutions named in this episode are real. The people are not. Every character in the Blocked Britain series is fictional. Every situation they describe is statistically accurate. Data sources: ONS deprivation data, NOMIS labour market statistics, Charity Commission data, 360Giving grants data. Blocked Britain has no political affiliation and no named authors. It is funded by no organisation.
Next episode
Marcus's Story
Worsley and Eccles · Episode 127