Sienna
I knew I wanted to be a nurse from the moment I watched the team at Chorley Hospital care for my gran during her final weeks. She had lung cancer, and those nurses didn't just manage her pain, they held her hand when she was scared, explained everything to our family, made her laugh even when breathing was hard. I was nineteen then, working part-time as a healthcare assistant while finishing my A-levels at Runshaw College. Every shift convinced me more: this was what I wanted to do with my life.
My dad worked at the BAE factory until it closed, my mum was a teaching assistant at the local primary. They were proud when I got good grades, prouder still when I told them I wanted to train as a nurse. "The country always needs nurses," Mum said. "Secure work, important work." I saved every penny from my healthcare assistant shifts, lived at home, walked to work instead of taking the bus. By 2019, I had enough saved and applied to Edge Hill University's nursing programme.
The rejection letter came in May. "Unfortunately, the cohort is full. Health Education England has allocated 180 training places for this region, and all places have been filled. Your application was strong, but demand exceeds capacity." I called the admissions office. "Can't you just take a few more students if you have good applicants?" The woman on the phone sounded tired. "We'd love to, but the funding is ring-fenced. We can only train the number Health Education England will pay for."
I tried again in 2020. This time I was accepted, but then Covid hit. The university offered deferrals, and I took one, thinking it would all be sorted by 2021. I kept working at Chorley Hospital through the pandemic, watching qualified nurses leave for better-paid agency work, seeing wards short-staffed every single day. When I contacted Edge Hill in early 2021 to confirm my deferred place, I was told there was a problem. "The funding has been cut," the admissions officer said. "We can only offer 160 places this year instead of 180. Your deferred place is no longer guaranteed."
I reapplied immediately and got on the waiting list. While I waited, I picked up extra shifts at the hospital, watching the same staffing problems get worse every month. In autumn 2022, I drove to the Edge Hill campus to visit their open day, hoping to strengthen my application for the following year. What I saw made no sense.
The nursing building was huge, five floors, modern lecture theatres, simulation wards with the latest equipment. But whole floors were empty. I counted the seats in the main lecture theatre: 200. I asked a student volunteer how many were in her year. "About 35 in each clinical group," she said. "Maybe 140 total across all three years." I walked through corridors lined with empty classrooms, past laboratories that could have trained twice as many students.
I found the admissions office and asked directly: "If you have all this space, all these facilities, why can't you train more nurses?" The woman behind the desk looked uncomfortable. "It's not about space. Treasury spending limits mean we can only fund what's been allocated, even though we desperately need more nurses. Health Education England sets the budget, and that's it."
"But you could physically teach more students?"
"Of course we could. We have the lecturers, we have the equipment. But there is no funding."
The next week I applied for a staff nurse position at Royal Preston Hospital. The manager who interviewed me was blunt: "I'd hire you tomorrow if you were qualified. We have 47 nursing vacancies we cannot fill. The wards are running on agency staff and goodwill." She showed me the staffing board, red marks everywhere, showing unfilled shifts, cancelled procedures, beds closed because there weren't enough nurses to staff them safely.
I started noticing things I'd missed before. Walking through Chorley town centre, I recognised faces from the hospital, former healthcare assistants now working in shops, serving coffee, stacking shelves at ASDA. I stopped to chat with Sarah, who'd worked on the children's ward until her hours were cut. "I'd love to train as a nurse," she said, "but I can't get on the course. Been trying for three years."
At Costa, I found Mark, who'd been a healthcare assistant in A&E. "Same story," he said. "Want to train, can't get funded." I counted eight people that week, all with healthcare experience, all wanting to become qualified nurses, all stuck because the training places didn't exist. Not because the universities couldn't teach them. Not because they weren't suitable. Because someone in Westminster had decided there wasn't enough money.
Then I saw Bethany from St Helens share her story on social media. Same situation, qualified candidates, understaffed hospitals, empty training places, the same excuse: "There is no funding." I started looking at other towns across the North West. Preston, same story. Blackburn, same story. Wigan, same story. Everywhere, the pattern repeated: people who wanted to train, hospitals desperate for staff, universities with empty lecture halls, and the same response from Health Education England and NHS England: the budget won't stretch.
That's when I started to understand what was really happening. The government that prints every pound note, that issues the currency we all use, was telling us it couldn't find enough money to train the nurses that its own hospitals were crying out for. The same government that found billions for bank bailouts, that created money digitally during Covid to pay furlough wages, was claiming it was broke when it came to connecting unemployed healthcare workers to the nursing courses that would get them onto understaffed wards.
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 the 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 facilities were available. They were. All of them.
I've seen the empty lecture theatres that could train 200 students teaching 35. I've met the qualified lecturers who could teach larger cohorts. I've spoken to the healthcare assistants who want to retrain and the hospital managers who want to hire them. Every piece of the puzzle exists except the political willingness to spend the money that would connect them.
The excuse was not a fact. It was a choice wrapped in the language of impossibility. The limit was never the money. The limit was the willingness to spend it into the places and the people who needed it. And I know now that what happened to me in Chorley is happening in every constituency across the North West, wherever people stand ready to do the work that desperately needs doing, while someone in Whitehall says the cupboard is bare.
Fake Experts
What Sienna experienced has a name.
Using unqualified or misleading sources to manufacture doubt about what the data clearly shows.
Think of tobacco companies in the 1950s citing "doctors who smoke" to suggest medical endorsement of cigarettes, while ignoring the growing evidence of harm. They found experts willing to say what served their interests, then presented those voices as representing the entire medical profession.
The same pattern operated in Sienna's story. Every time she was told "there is no funding," someone was treating the household budget analogy as settled economic fact. HM Treasury, Health Education England, and university admissions officers all spoke as though a government that issues its own currency could run out of money the same way a household can run out of savings. They cited spending limits as natural laws rather than political choices.
But which economists actually support this view? The profession is deeply divided. Many macroeconomists argue the binding constraint is real capacity, people, skills, materials, not the currency itself. "Economists say we cannot spend more on health without causing inflation" 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. And in Chorley, those resources were sitting idle. The resources existed. The people existed. The decision not to connect them was political, not financial.