Dexter did not exist before this episode. What they are about to describe is happening across South West as you listen. This is their story. In one of the most deprived constituencies in the country, NHS training programmes sit half-empty while hospitals report hundreds of nursing vacancies. The resources to connect people to healthcare careers exist, but Treasury spending limits treat workforce investment as a cost rather than the solution to chronic understaffing.

I grew up watching my dad serve on Royal Navy ships that docked right here in Devonport, and my mum serve school dinners to kids who reminded me of myself. Service was in my blood, but it was caring for my nan during her diabetes complications that showed me where I belonged. She spent weeks at Derriford Hospital, and I saw how the healthcare assistants made the difference between a frightening place and somewhere that felt safe. After my A-levels at Devonport High, I started work there myself, determined to eventually train as a nurse and give back to the community that raised me.

In early 2020, I submitted my application to the University of Plymouth's nursing programme. I had the grades, the experience, the passion. What I did not expect was the phone call from the admissions officer in March. "I'm sorry, Dexter," she said. "Health Education England has capped our funded places at 180 this year, down from 240 last year. The Treasury has reduced our training budget. We simply cannot afford to take more students." She sounded genuinely apologetic, explaining that they had qualified applicants but their hands were tied by funding constraints.

I accepted this. It sounded reasonable. Budgets were tight, everyone knew that. I decided to wait and try again the following year. In 2021, I contacted NHS England South West directly, thinking perhaps there was another route. The workforce planning coordinator was helpful but delivered the same message: "Funding constraints mean we cannot expand nursing training places. We understand the frustration, but we're working within the budget we've been allocated."

Still, I persisted. In 2022, I approached University Hospitals Plymouth NHS Trust about apprenticeship routes. The training coordinator there was enthusiastic about my background and experience. "We'd love to take you on," she said, "but Health Education England won't fund additional apprentice positions. There is no funding for expansion of our programme this year."

There it was again. "There is no funding." I heard it from every institution I contacted. It became a refrain that followed me through every conversation about my future. At first, I accepted it completely. These were serious people in serious institutions telling me about serious financial constraints. Who was I to question the experts?

But then I started noticing things that did not fit. Walking past the university's health building one afternoon, I saw entire floors of the nursing simulation labs sitting empty. Through the windows, I could see brand-new equipment still in packaging, high-tech mannequins for training procedures, fully equipped ward replicas gathering dust. A security guard I got chatting with mentioned they had space for 300 students but were only using half the building. "Seems a waste," he said, "all this gear just sitting there."

I started asking different questions. If there was no money for training, why was the training facility sitting empty? I learned from a neighbour who worked in NHS recruitment that there were over 400 nursing vacancies across Devon and Cornwall. The hospitals were desperate for qualified staff, agency costs were spiralling, and patient care was suffering from understaffing.

The pieces did not add up. The building existed. The equipment existed. The qualified lecturers existed – many had been made redundant when the programme was cut. The eager students existed – I met dozens of others in my situation. The hospitals with vacancies existed. The community need existed. What exactly was it that "there was no money" for?

That question changed everything for me. I started to understand that when the Treasury said it could not afford to train nurses, it was not because the physical capacity did not exist. It was not because the teachers were unavailable. It was not because the students were unwilling. It was because the government that prints the pound notes and mints the coins had decided not to create enough of them to connect the people who wanted to become nurses to the wards that desperately needed them.

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.

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 am still here, still watching, still ready. What I understand now is that my story is not unique to Plymouth Sutton and Devonport. It is the story of every constituency where people stand ready to serve, where communities need that service, where the resources exist to make the connection – and where someone in Westminster decides the cupboard is bare.

What Dexter experienced has a name: Fake Experts. Throughout history, industries have manufactured credibility by citing authorities who repeat their preferred message. Tobacco companies found doctors willing to say smoking was harmless. Pharmaceutical companies found researchers willing to downplay side effects. The technique works because people trust expertise, even when the experts are carefully selected for their willingness to support a predetermined conclusion.

In Dexter's case, every institution cited budget constraints as though they were natural laws rather than political choices. Health Education England, NHS England, University Hospitals Plymouth NHS Trust – all spoke as though "there is no funding" was an objective fact discovered by economic science, not a decision made by the Treasury. The language of expertise disguised what was actually happening: the government that issues the pound was choosing not to issue enough pounds to train the nurses the NHS desperately needed.

When challenged, defenders of this system point to "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 resources existed. The people existed. The decision not to connect them was political, not financial.

Plymouth Sutton and Devonport ranks 106 out of 543 English constituencies in the English Indices of Deprivation 2025, placing it in deprivation decile 2. The constituency has 503 registered charities according to the Charity Commission Register for England and Wales. Total grants received amount to £6.6 million according to 360Giving GrantNav. All sources are published at Blocked Britain dot Co dot UK. Blocked Britain tells the stories of people whose lives are shaped by the gap between what Britain needs and what its institutions choose to provide. Every character is fictional. Every situation is drawn from official statistics. Produced by Blocked Britain.

Dexter is a fictional character. Their situation is statistically representative. Sources at https://blockedbritain.co.uk/stories/342-plymouth-sutton-and-devonport/