Rosie did not exist before this episode. What they are about to describe is happening across South East as you listen. This is their story. In Oxford West and Abingdon, NHS workforce planning has created a paradox: empty training facilities while hospital wards run dangerously short-staffed, nursing students turned away while simulation labs sit unused, healthcare assistants who want to qualify as nurses told there are no places available. My name is Rosie, and I have spent three years watching this system waste the very people it claims it cannot afford to train.

I grew up in Abingdon with my mum, who works as a teaching assistant, and my dad, who maintains the council's parks and green spaces. I knew I wanted to be a nurse from the age of 17, after volunteering at a local care home during sixth form. There was something about being with people when they needed care most that felt like exactly what I was meant to do. Every morning now, before I start my shift, I walk my rescued greyhound Buster along the Thames Path and think about how different my life might have been if the system had worked the way it was supposed to.

In 2019, I applied to the nursing programme at Oxford Brookes University. I was accepted, which should have been the beginning. Instead, I got a call three weeks before the start date. They told me the cohort size had been cut from 180 places to 120 due to Health Education England funding restrictions. "There is no funding," the admissions officer explained. "We had to reduce the intake. You can defer if you like." It sounded reasonable. Everyone said it was just how things were.

I deferred and got a job as a healthcare assistant at Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust. For two years, I worked on the wards, doing everything I could within my scope of practice, watching qualified nurses run themselves into the ground because there simply were not enough of them. I saw agency nurses brought in at three times the cost of permanent staff. I saw whole shifts where we were dangerously understaffed. But I kept thinking: next year, there will be funding for my nursing degree. Next year, I will be part of the solution.

I reapplied in 2021. This time, the programme had been reduced further to 80 places. Eighty places, in a city where the John Radcliffe Hospital alone was advertising for dozens of nurse vacancies. I did not get in. The woman at Oxford Brookes was apologetic. "The budget has been cut again," she said. "Health Education England has had to make difficult choices." I asked her how many people had applied. She said over 400. I asked her how many of those people were already working in healthcare, like me, ready to train, desperate to qualify. She said she could not give me exact numbers, but it was most of them.

Finally, in 2022, I got a place. I started the programme believing that the constraints I had experienced were real, that the system was doing the best it could with limited resources. Then I began my placement rotations.

At the John Radcliffe, I worked on wards that were running with skeleton crews while, three floors down, the university's simulation labs sat empty most afternoons. The labs had capacity for 40 students at a time, but our cohort was so small that we used them for maybe two hours a day. The rest of the time, they were locked and dark. I asked one of my practice supervisors why we could not train more students. She looked at me as though I had asked why water flows uphill. "There is no funding for more places," she said.

But I could see the contradiction right in front of me. One evening, walking back to my car after a late shift, I passed the Nursing Skills Centre at Churchill Hospital. The main door was locked, but I could see through the windows. Dozens of practice beds, arranged in perfect rows. IV training equipment still in its boxes. Computer terminals for digital learning, covered in dust sheets. The building had been designed for 200 students. We were barely 60.

That night, I called my course coordinator. I asked her directly: if the facilities exist, and the people who want to train exist, what exactly is it that there is no money for? She explained about Health Education England's budget allocations, about Treasury spending limits, about how nurse training had to be rationed. But something about her explanation did not add up. I started asking different questions.

I learned that the same government that issues the pound, that creates the currency we all use, was telling us it could not find enough pounds to train the nurses we desperately needed. I learned that while our simulation labs sat empty, other people in Oxford were working as healthcare assistants, just like I had been, wanting exactly what I wanted, blocked by exactly the same funding caps. I met a woman called Sarah who had been trying to get onto a nursing programme for four years. She lived two streets away from me. She had all the qualifications. She was working at the same hospital trust. But apparently, there was no money to train her either.

I started to understand that "there is no money" was not a fact. It was a choice. The government that prints the notes and mints the coins was telling us it could not afford to connect the people who wanted to become nurses with the training that would qualify them. But the trainers were there. The buildings were there. The equipment was there. The students were there. The wards that needed us were there.

The limit was never the money. The limit was the decision, made by someone in Westminster, that nurse training was a cost to be minimised rather than an investment in the health service we all depend on. Every time someone said "there is no funding," they were treating the government like a household that might run out of cash. But governments are not households. They issue the currency. The real question was never where the money would come from. The real question was whether we had the people, the skills, and the facilities to train more nurses. We did. All of them.

I qualified last year. I am working now as a registered nurse at the John Radcliffe, on a ward that is still chronically understaffed. I walk past those empty simulation labs every week. I know there are people out there who want to do exactly what I am doing and cannot get the chance. Not because the resources do not exist. Not because the training cannot be delivered. But because someone, somewhere, decided that connecting those people to this work was not worth the pounds it would cost.

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 know this is not just my story. It is the story of every constituency where people want to train as nurses, teachers, social workers, engineers, while someone in Westminster says the cupboard is bare. The cupboard was never bare. The decision was made to keep it locked.

What Rosie experienced has a name: Fake Experts. This technique involves citing economists or commentators who treat government budgets like household budgets, as though repeating the false analogy makes it true. Consider how tobacco companies once paraded scientists who insisted cigarettes were harmless. The scientists had credentials, but their conclusions served the industry that funded them. Eventually, independent research exposed the truth.

In healthcare, fake experts claim "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.

When Rosie was told there was "no funding" for nursing places, she was hearing the household budget myth dressed as expertise. The people who made those decisions treated it as self-evident that the government could run out of money, as though the institution that issues the pound operates under the same constraints as the people who use it.

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. In Rosie's constituency, those resources were sitting idle. Empty training labs, qualified instructors, would-be nurses working as healthcare assistants. The resources existed. The people existed. The decision not to connect them was political, not financial.

Oxford West and Abingdon ranks 534 out of 543 English constituencies on deprivation, placing it in the least deprived decile (English Indices of Deprivation 2025, MHCLG). The constituency has 3110 registered charities (Charity Commission Register, England and Wales). Total grants received amount to £20.6 million (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.

Rosie is a fictional character. Their situation is stat...