Lenny is invented. What Lenny describes is not. It is happening across East of England right now. This is their story. In Hertsmere, construction training sits idle while housing developments wait for qualified tradespeople who cannot access the courses that would put them to work. The machinery exists, the workshops stand ready, the apprenticeships have been designed – but the connection between people and skills has been severed by decisions made in Westminster.

I've been swinging hammers since I was sixteen, working extensions and loft conversions with my dad around Borehamwood and the villages. Good, honest work that pays the bills and leaves you tired at the end of the day in the way that means something. My girlfriend's expecting our first in February and we're cramped in her mum's spare room, saving every pound we can for a deposit on a place of our own. That's what got me thinking about proper qualifications – site management, advanced joinery, maybe electrical work. The kind of skills that open doors to better contracts, steadier money, the sort of future where you can provide for a family without wondering if next month's work will materialise.

I'd seen the adverts everywhere: apprenticeship schemes, progression routes, construction colleges crying out for motivated people ready to learn. Hertford Regional College had this glossy brochure showing workshops full of students learning everything from bricklaying to sustainable building techniques. Advanced Construction Management, that was the course that caught my eye. Eighteen months, day release, funded places available for people with site experience. Perfect. I filled out the application, attached my CV showing eight years on building crews, and waited.

The rejection letter came three weeks later. Oversubscribed, it said. Funding allocations from the Department for Levelling Up had been reduced and priority was being given to applicants with formal qualifications. Disappointing, but fair enough – I'd try elsewhere.

South Hertfordshire College was my next stop. Same course, slightly different structure, same outcome. The woman on the phone was apologetic but clear: "There is no funding for additional cohorts this year. We've had to scale back our construction programmes significantly."

That phrase stuck with me – "there is no funding." It sounded so final, so reasonable. Money was tight, everyone knew that. Courses cost money to run, tutors needed paying, equipment needed maintaining. Of course there were limits. I accepted it the way you accept rain in July or queues at the supermarket. These things happen.

But I couldn't let it go. This was my future we were talking about, my kid's future. So I called CITB directly, the Construction Industry Training Board that's supposed to coordinate all this. Surely they'd have something, some pathway for experienced workers looking to upskill.

The regional officer was polite enough. "Budget allocations have been reduced across the board," he explained. "We're prioritising areas with proven employment outcomes. The data shows better completion rates in other regions."

Other regions. As if Hertsmere was some construction wasteland where nobody knew which end of a spirit level was which. I'd been building extensions in this area for years – the work was constant, the demand endless. New developments going up everywhere you looked, planning permissions granted faster than the crews could keep up with them.

Something wasn't adding up. If the work was there and the people were there, what exactly was this shortage of money preventing? I decided to drive over to Hertford Regional College anyway, just to see the place, maybe talk to someone face to face.

What I found there changed everything.

The construction block was massive – purpose-built workshops, separate bays for different trades, the kind of setup that would make any contractor jealous. But half of it was empty. Completely empty. I walked past workshop after workshop where the lights were off and the benches stood bare. In one room, I could see brand new equipment still in its packaging, dust sheets thrown over workstations that looked like they'd never been used.

The caretaker found me peering through the windows. Nice old boy, been there fifteen years, happy to chat. "Shame, isn't it?" he said, following my gaze. "All that kit just sitting there."

"What happened?" I asked.

"Cuts," he said simply. "Three construction courses cancelled this year. Department said there wasn't enough central funding allocation to run them." He shook his head. "Forty-seven people on the waiting list for those courses. Forty-seven. All local, all keen to learn. But apparently there's no money."

No money. For what, exactly? The building was already built. The equipment was already bought. The curriculum was already designed. The instructors existed – I could see their nameplates still on the office doors. The students were literally queuing up, forty-seven of them with application forms filled out and ready to start.

Standing there in that empty workshop, surrounded by unused tools and silent machines, I finally understood what "there is no money" actually meant. It didn't mean the pounds and pence didn't exist somewhere in the system. It meant someone, somewhere, had decided not to spend them. Someone had looked at this room full of potential – the equipment, the space, the instructors, the students – and chosen to leave it all disconnected.

The government that prints those pound notes had told us it couldn't find enough of them to connect the people who wanted to learn with the tools that could teach them. But the learning could clearly happen. Everything needed was right there. The constraint wasn't money – it was a decision dressed up as mathematics.

I started noticing it everywhere after that. Housing developments across Hertsmere with planning permission but no crews to build them. "Skills shortage," the developers said. Meanwhile, blokes like me who'd been working construction for years couldn't get onto the training courses that would give us the advanced qualifications the industry claimed it needed. Empty training centres. Waiting lists. Government departments saying the cupboard was bare while the cupboard itself sat unused.

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. Right there in Hertsmere, right there in that workshop, right there on those waiting lists.

I used to accept the excuse that "there was no money." I hear it differently now. The government that issues the currency told me it couldn't find enough pounds to train the people who were standing ready to work. 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 with my dad while I figure out the next move. My kid will be born into a world where empty training centres stand next to unbuilt houses while someone in Westminster explains that connecting the two is financially impossible. But I understand now that what happened wasn't bad luck or natural scarcity. It was a choice made by people who had alternatives. And choices can be unmade.

This isn't just my story. It's the story of every constituency where the work exists, the workers exist, and the training exists – but someone has decided the pounds that would connect them simply cannot be found.

What Lenny experienced has a name: Cherry Picking. This technique works like a tobacco company highlighting the one study that questions the cancer link while ignoring thousands that confirm it. They select rare failures to justify universal inaction.

In construction and housing policy, Cherry Picking sounds like this: "Other councils tried building housing and it failed." They point to isolated examples where construction projects went over budget or training programmes had poor completion rates, then use these exceptions to justify never investing anywhere. They ignore Vienna's million council homes, Singapore's public housing success, or the fact that every major UK city built housing successfully at scale until 1980.

This selective evidence serves the household budget myth perfectly. If spending sometimes fails, they argue, spending must always be rationed like household money. But the UK government issues its own currency. It doesn't need to find pounds before it spends them. The real question is whether the resources exist: the land, the workers, the materials, the skills.

In Lenny's case, all those resources were sitting idle. The workshops existed. The equipment existed. The instructors existed. Forty-seven people existed on waiting lists, ready to train for an industry crying out for workers. The resources existed. The people existed. The decision not to connect them was political, not financial.

Hertsmere ranks 389 out of 543 English constituencies for deprivation, placing it in decile 8 according to English Indices of Deprivation 2025 from MHCLG. The constituency has 3243 registered charities according to the Charity Commission Register for England and Wales. Total grants received amount to £38.6 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.

Lenny is a fictional character. Their situation is statistically representative. Sources at