Pavel
I came to England when I was eight, following my parents from a small town outside Kraków to Stockport. My uncle Tomasz was an electrician back home, and I'd watch him rewire entire apartment blocks, his hands moving like he was conducting an orchestra. That's what I wanted to do. Not just fix plugs or change bulbs, but proper electrical work, the kind that keeps whole buildings running. I left school at sixteen and took labouring jobs, always thinking I'd save enough to train properly. Five years in the same council flat, watching that empty plot across the road where they were supposed to build new homes, I finally decided to stop waiting.
In February 2023, I called the Greater Manchester Combined Authority about their construction skills programme. I'd seen the adverts on the bus stops: "Train for the Future, Build for Tomorrow." The woman on the phone was polite but firm. "The electrical training stream has been suspended," she said. "Budget constraints following Treasury spending reviews." I asked when it might start again. "We don't have a timeline for restoration of funding." It sounded official, reasonable even. Of course there were budget constraints. There always were.
I tried Stockport College next. The admissions office was in a modern building near the town centre, all glass and metal that caught the afternoon light. The officer who met with me, Sarah, seemed genuinely sorry. She pulled up something on her computer screen and shook her head. "We've got empty places on the CITB-funded electrical courses," she said. "Twenty-four places, actually. But we can't recruit because the funding allocation doesn't match local housing targets." I didn't understand. "There are places but you can't fill them?" She nodded. "The funding formula was changed. We can only use the money in areas where the government says housing need has been met." I looked out the window at the cranes across Stockport, the half-built developments, the planning notices stuck to every other fence. "But we need more houses here." She spread her hands. "I know. It doesn't make sense to me either."
I wasn't giving up. I found the Construction Industry Training Board regional office in a business park outside Manchester. The coordinator there, a man called David with twenty years in the trade, was even more direct. "We've got training capacity," he said. "Full workshops, qualified instructors. But Treasury rules prevent us directing levy funds to areas with unmet housing need." I stared at him. "Because we need housing, you can't train people to build housing?" He leaned back in his chair. "There is no funding for areas that haven't hit their targets." The words hung in the air. There is no funding. I accepted it because everyone else seemed to accept it. That's how these things worked, apparently.
Walking past the college one evening in March, I noticed something odd. The electrical workshop on the ground floor was dark. I'd seen it lit up before, students bent over workbenches, the blue flicker of welding. Now it was black. The security guard was having a cigarette by the main entrance, and I asked him about it. "Been like that for months," he said, flicking ash into the wind. "Got all the equipment, just no students allowed to use it." He gestured through the window at rows of tools, circuit boards, testing equipment. "Waste, if you ask me."
The following week, I met Jamie at a job fair in Leigh. He was twenty-six, keen as anything, wanted to do exactly what I wanted to do. He'd tried the same CITB funding route and hit the same wall. "They told me the same thing," he said. "No funding for areas with unmet housing need." We compared notes. Same empty training places. Same equipment sitting unused. Same reasonable-sounding explanation about budget constraints.
That's when I started to see the contradiction. If the people existed – me, Jamie, dozens of others we'd met – and the training places existed, and the equipment existed, and the housing need existed, what exactly was it that "there was no money" for? I walked past that empty plot across from my flat every day. I could see the planning permission notice still taped to the fence, faded but readable. The need was there. The space was there. The training workshops were there, dark and locked.
I started to think differently about that phrase: "There is no funding." The government that prints the notes and mints the coins was telling me it couldn't find enough of them to connect the people who were standing right there – me, Jamie, the others – to the work that needed doing. But the people existed. The skills could be taught. The materials were available in that locked workshop. All of it was there.
The excuse wasn't a fact. It was a choice wrapped in the language of impossibility. It was the same logic as a household saying "we cannot 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 the people who needed it.
I'm still here, still watching. I understand now what I didn't understand when I first called that helpline. This isn't just my story, or Jamie's 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. But I can see the cupboard. I walk past it every day. The workshop windows, the empty plot, the planning notices. Everything we need to build the homes and train the people is already here. What we're missing isn't money. What we're missing is the decision to use what we have.
Cherry Picking
What Pavel experienced has a name.
Selecting only the data points that support a predetermined conclusion while ignoring the rest.
In Pavel's case, every time construction training or council housing was discussed, someone would cite isolated examples of failure. "Other councils tried building housing and it failed," they'd say, as though a handful of problems proved the entire approach was doomed. But this selectively ignores the overwhelming evidence: Vienna built a million council homes successfully. Singapore houses 80% of its population in public developments. Every major UK city until 1980 built council housing at scale without catastrophe.
The real question isn't whether housing programmes have ever failed somewhere – of course some have. The question is what conditions make them work. But Cherry Picking prevents that conversation by treating any past failure as proof that future attempts are impossible.
Meanwhile, the UK government issues its own currency and doesn't need to find pounds before it spends them. The real constraint is resources: people, skills, materials, time. In Pavel's constituency, those resources were sitting idle. The resources existed. The people existed. The decision not to connect them was political, not financial.