£4.1 Million Builds a Gateway to Nowhere

Labour ministers launched an AI Skills Hub this week to upskill 10 million workers. The site, funded by £4.1 million to PwC, links to courses that do not exist. Taxpayers bought a portal of broken promises.

Procurement records confirm the payment to PwC covered site construction, course curation, and skills research. The hub promises free online training from tech firms and educators. Users clicking “enroll now” often land on homepages or dead ends.

One listed University of Edinburgh course on “AI in society” redirects to the university’s front page. Edinburgh does not offer it. Another Microsoft database tutorial points to a basic product manual.

A “digital agriculture fundamentals” course demands residency in rural Canadian provinces like Alberta. An MIT history of computing module dates to 2004. Officials scrubbed a US-focused AI copyright course only after exposure.

Several links trace to “degree mills”—providers hawking low-quality, pricey modules with scam complaints. VinciWorks, supplier of the removed copyright course, confirmed no consultation or permission from government. The firm called the UK-targeted link misleading.

Government claims 600 courses underwent review for quality and relevance. A Department for Science spokesman stressed “deep and specialist expertise” with hybrid international options. Yet evidence shows persistent gaps in vetting.

Procurement Without Delivery

PwC received the contract to organise content amid Labour’s economy modernisation drive. The firm must identify skills gaps while shielding workers from AI job losses. Delivery falls short on basics: functional links.

This echoes procurement patterns where consultancies secure multimillion fees for digital projects. Outcomes prioritise billing over usability. Core functionality escapes scrutiny.

Political Rhetoric Meets Reality

Labour touted the hub as protection against AI disruption. Ministers aimed to train millions in tools reshaping work. The site delivers outdated sales pitches and foreign irrelevancies instead.

Shadow business secretary Andrew Griffith labelled it an embarrassing competence failure. Campaigner Ed Newton-Rex dismissed it as big tech propaganda and slide decks unfit for UK needs. Taxpayer value evaporates in the execution.

Cross-party critique underscores the issue. Conservatives highlight unaddressed barriers like high energy costs for AI infrastructure. Labour’s response defends volume over viability.

Institutional Patterns Emerge

UK governments repeatedly fund tech initiatives with grand skills pledges. Past efforts—from digital academies to online learning portals—yield similar underperformance. Delivery hinges on external firms, not in-house capability.

£4.1 million could have subsidised verifiable training. Instead, it sustains a facade of action. Citizens face AI-driven change without equipped support.

Regulators and providers escape liability. PwC faces no comment demand in the article, nor repayment pressure. Funds flow regardless of results.

Britain’s productivity lags demand real upskilling. This hub adds noise, not capacity. Workers remain exposed as tech advances unchecked.

The episode exposes core governance rot: officials announce ambition, outsource execution, ignore outputs. Labour inherits and amplifies a system where spending substitutes for competence. Decline accelerates when even flagship digital tools crumble at launch.