Skip to main content
Stories Constituencies Map About YouTube Substack Bluesky Twitter/X Podcast RSS
Episode 201

Jess

Southport  |  NHS / Healthcare  |  10 May 2026
Across North West, people are running into the wall Jess is about to describe. Jess is fictional. The wall is not. This is their story. In Southport, healthcare training places sit empty while qualified candidates queue for programmes they cannot access, leaving hospital wards understaffed and communities underserved. The infrastructure exists, the lecturers are qualified, the simulation labs are built, but Treasury spending limits have created an artificial scarcity that blocks the very workforce the NHS desperately needs.

I grew up in Birkdale watching my mum come home from weekend shifts at the local care home, still in her healthcare assistant uniform, talking about the patients she'd helped that day. She'd describe how she'd sat with Mrs Patterson during her final hours, or helped Mr Davies take his first steps after his stroke. I knew from age twelve that I wanted to be a nurse. Not because of some grand calling, but because I'd seen how much difference one person could make when they had the right training and the time to care properly.

After my A-levels at Southport College, I spent two years stacking shelves at Tesco, saving every penny for university while my parents started needing more support themselves. Dad's plumbing business was struggling with his arthritis, and Mum was working longer hours to make up the shortfall. I wanted to train locally so I could help them while building the career I'd always planned.

In 2021, I applied to Edge Hill University's nursing programme. I'd done my research, met all the entry requirements, written a personal statement that I'd redrafted fifteen times. The rejection letter was polite but firm: "Unfortunately, the cohort is full." I tried again in 2022, certain that my additional year of experience as a care assistant would strengthen my application. Same response. Same polite language about limited places.

I was standing in the corridor at Edge Hill after collecting my second rejection when one of the lecturers stopped me. She'd seen my application both years. "You know," she said quietly, "we'd take you tomorrow if we could. Health Education England has capped our funded training places. We can't take on students we can't afford to train." She looked genuinely frustrated. "There's just no funding for expansion, even though we need more nurses desperately."

That made sense to me then. Budgets are tight everywhere. I accepted it as a fact of life and went back to work as a care assistant at Southport Hospital, telling myself I'd try again next year. The wards were chronically understaffed. We'd have three assistants covering what should have been a five-person shift. Patients waited longer for basic care. Qualified nurses were burning out trying to cover impossible workloads. Everyone said the same thing: "We need more staff, but there's no money to train them."

I contacted NHS England directly in early 2023, asking about alternative pathways into nursing. They referred me to Health Education England North West, who explained that their budget had been "constrained by Treasury spending limits." The advisor was sympathetic but clear: "We understand the demand is high, but we have to work within the resources we're allocated. There is no funding for additional training places at present."

I accepted this too. It sounded reasonable. Governments have budgets. Departments have limits. Everyone has to live within their means.

Then I discovered something that didn't fit the story I'd been told.

I was visiting Edge Hill to collect some paperwork when I walked past the nursing building. Half the car park was empty. Through the windows, I could see simulation labs that weren't being used. I asked the receptionist about it casually, mentioned I was hoping to apply again next year.

"Oh, we've got forty empty places on this year's cohort," she said. "International students were supposed to fill them, but they didn't materialise. Brexit complications, visa issues, that sort of thing. Shame really, because the facilities are just sitting there."

Forty empty places. Training facilities designed to run at capacity operating at half-speed. Qualified lecturers with reduced hours because there weren't enough students to teach.

I started asking around. The care assistant network in Southport is tight-knit. We all know each other, cover each other's shifts, share information about opportunities. I found dozens of people like me: qualified candidates who'd been rejected or waitlisted for nursing programmes. People who lived locally, who wanted to work in our hospitals, who'd been told there was no space for them.

But there was space. Forty empty spaces, in fact. The people existed. The building existed. The need existed. The lecturers existed. What exactly was it that "there was no money" for?

That's when I started to understand something I hadn't seen before. The government that issues the pound chose not to spend the pounds that would connect qualified candidates to training places. Health Education England's budget wasn't a law of physics. It was a political decision made by the Treasury, a department of the government that prints the currency it claimed it couldn't afford to spend.

The constraint wasn't the availability of pounds. The constraint was a choice wrapped in the language of financial impossibility. Someone in Westminster had decided that training the nurses Southport needed was not worth the cost, even though the infrastructure to train them was sitting idle and the people who wanted the training were standing ready.

I used to accept the excuse that "there was no money." I hear it differently now. The government that prints the notes and mints the coins told me it could not 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 materials were available. They were. All of them.

The excuse was not a fact. It was a choice wrapped in the language of impossibility. It is the same logic as a household that says "we cannot afford it," except a household does not 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 the people who needed it.

I'm still here, still watching, still working on the wards where we're understaffed every single day. But I understand now that what happened to me is not just my story. It is the story of every constituency where people and needs exist side by side while someone in Westminster says the cupboard is bare. The cupboard is never bare when you hold the key to the mint.

5th decile
Deprivation decile (1 = most deprived) among 543 English constituencies
low
Documented funding gap severity
What just happened

Fake Experts

What Jess experienced has a name.

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

What Jess experienced has a name: Fake Experts. This technique works by citing economists or commentators who treat the household budget analogy as self-evident truth, as though repeating it makes it real. Think of the tobacco industry's "scientists" who claimed smoking was harmless, or pharmaceutical companies' "research" that downplayed addiction risks. The technique relies on authority without scrutiny.

In Jess's story, every official she spoke to referenced "Treasury spending limits" and "budget constraints" as though these were natural laws rather than political choices. When challenged about training places sitting empty, they pointed to economists who insisted government spending must be rationed like household income.

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 UK government issues its own currency. It does not need to find pounds before it spends them. The real constraint is resources: people, skills, materials, time. In Southport, those resources were sitting idle. Forty empty training places. Qualified lecturers on reduced hours. Simulation labs running at quarter capacity. Local candidates ready to train.

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 Jess 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
Robyn's Story
Gosport · Episode 202