Skip to main content
Stories Constituencies Map About YouTube Substack Bluesky Twitter/X Podcast RSS
Episode 80

Tom

Sheffield South East  |  Construction  |  5 May 2026
Tom is a fictional character, but what they went through is happening across Yorkshire and The Humber today. This is their story. In Sheffield South East, one of the most deprived constituencies in England, construction workers cannot access training while housing developments sit unbuilt with approved planning permission. The skills exist, the instructors are qualified, and the need is urgent, but training centres stand empty while families wait in overcrowded flats. Tom's experience shows how political choices masquerade as financial impossibilities.

I've been good with my hands since I was a kid, following my dad around building sites on the Manor estate, watching him lay bricks and fix guttering on the council houses. When I left school at 16, I thought I'd pick it up naturally - and I did, to a point. But casual labouring is all I could get without proper qualifications. Twenty-pound jobs here and there, never knowing where the next week's work was coming from. When my girlfriend Emma told me we were expecting, I knew I had to get serious about becoming a qualified electrician.

I walked into Sheffield College on a Tuesday morning in March, convinced this was my moment. The woman at reception was friendly enough, handed me the leaflet for the electrical installation course. Level 2 City & Guilds, eighteen months, exactly what I needed. Then she checked the system. "I'm afraid there's a two-year waiting list," she said, not looking up from her screen. "Funding constraints mean we can only run two cohorts a year now, down from six."

Two years. Emma would have the baby, we'd still be crammed in our one-bedroom flat above the chip shop, and I'd still be doing casual work with no guarantee of anything. I asked if there were other options. She suggested private colleges, but the fees were £8,000 upfront. Might as well have been £80,000.

Next, I tried South Yorkshire Training Group. Their office was in a business park near Rotherham, all glass and optimism from the outside. The advisor, a man called Dave who used to be a site foreman, was sympathetic but direct. "We'd love to take you on, Tom, but government cuts mean we can only take half the numbers we used to. The apprenticeship levy isn't reaching the providers anymore - it's all being redirected." When I pressed him, he said the same words I'd heard at the college: "There is no funding."

At first, that sounded reasonable. Times were tight, everyone knew that. If there wasn't money, there wasn't money. I accepted it the way you accept bad weather.

But then I started noticing things that didn't fit. Three times a week, I walked past the Rotherham Construction Skills Centre on my way to whatever casual work I could find. It had been a proper training facility - workshops, classrooms, even a mock house where apprentices could practice wiring and plumbing. Now it had 'For Lease' signs in the windows and weeds growing through the car park. The building was still there. The equipment was probably still inside. But apparently there was "no money" to use it.

I got talking to Jordan from Hull at a job in Dinnington. He told me about similar empty training centres across Yorkshire - Leeds, Bradford, Huddersfield - all closed or running at quarter capacity while lads like us couldn't get on courses. That's when I started asking different questions.

Through a mate who worked for Sheffield City Council, I found out something that made my head spin. Yorkshire had 400 unfilled construction training places across the region. Four hundred. And Sheffield was missing its housing targets by thousands of homes every year. The math was simple: qualified electricians, plumbers, and bricklayers could build those houses. The training places existed to create those qualified workers. The workers - people like me - were standing there ready to learn.

So what exactly was it that there was "no money" for?

I went back to Sheffield College, armed with this information. The receptionist directed me to an administrator called Sarah, who looked uncomfortable when I laid out what I'd discovered. "It's not that simple," she said at first. But when I kept pressing - politely, but I wasn't leaving without an answer - she finally told me the truth.

"We have the capacity," she said quietly, glancing around to make sure no one was listening. "We have qualified instructors sitting idle. But the CITB levy funding has been redirected to London projects because Treasury policy treats regional training investment as 'unaffordable spending.' The money exists - it's just not allowed to reach us."

CITB - the Construction Industry Training Board. They collect a levy from every construction company to fund exactly this kind of training. The money was there. The buildings were there. The instructors were there. The students were there. But someone in Whitehall had decided that connecting these things together was "unaffordable."

That was my moment of clarity. The government that prints the pounds, that issues every note and mints every coin, was telling 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 - we did. Whether the skills could be taught - they could. Whether the materials were available - they were.

The excuse wasn't a fact. It was a choice wrapped in the language of impossibility. When a household says "we cannot afford it," they mean they don't have the money and can't create it. When the government says "we cannot afford it," they mean they choose not to create the money, even though they have that power.

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 materials were available. They were. All of them.

I'm still doing casual work, still waiting for my chance. Emma's eight months now, and we're still in the flat above the chip shop. But I understand something I didn't understand at the start. This isn't just my story. It's the story of every constituency where people and needs exist side by side while someone in Westminster says the cupboard is bare. Every empty training centre, every unbuilt house, every skilled job that goes unfilled - they're all connected by the same lie, the same choice dressed up as inevitability.

The limit was never the money. The limit was the willingness to spend it into the places and the people who needed it most.

3rd decile
Deprivation decile (1 = most deprived) among 543 English constituencies
high
Documented funding gap severity
What just happened

Cherry Picking

What Tom experienced has a name.

Selecting only the data points that support a predetermined conclusion while ignoring the rest.

What Tom experienced has a name: Cherry Picking. This technique involves selecting rare examples of failure to justify never trying. Think of tobacco companies in the 1960s citing the few studies that didn't link smoking to cancer while ignoring the overwhelming evidence that it did. They weren't lying about those studies - they just presented them as the whole truth.

In Tom's story, every time officials said "there is no money" for training, they were applying the same selective logic. They cited the rare construction training programmes that didn't deliver perfect results while ignoring the overwhelming evidence of what happens when government does invest in skills. Vienna built world-class social housing for decades. Singapore trains construction workers at scale. Every major UK city until 1980 built council housing successfully.

The objection "Other councils tried building housing and it failed" follows this pattern exactly. Selective examples prove nothing. The question is what conditions make public construction work, not whether it has ever failed somewhere.

But the deeper issue was always the household budget myth. Every time someone said "we cannot afford to train electricians," they were treating the UK government like a household that must find pounds before it spends them. 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 Tom's constituency, those resources were sitting idle.

The resources existed. The people existed. The decision not to connect them was political, not financial.
Reality check
"Other councils tried building housing and it failed."
Selective examples prove nothing. Vienna, Singapore, and every major UK city until 1980 built council housing successfully at scale. The question is what conditions make it work, not whether it has ever failed somewhere.

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 Tom 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
Luca's Story
Southgate and Wood Green · Episode 81