More than 150 kebab takeout shops across Britain have indeed been granted government licences to employ workers directly from overseas — specifically under the Skilled Worker visa sponsorship scheme. The most recent confirmed figure is 159 kebab shops, according to Home Office data reported in June 2026.
These kebab shops now hold Skilled Worker sponsor licences, allowing them to recruit staff from abroad.
Sponsored workers can often bring family members with them, as permitted under the visa rules.
The scheme was originally intended for genuinely skilled roles, but critics argue it is being stretched far beyond its intent.
Senior Conservatives and migration campaigners have called the situation ‘absurd’ and ‘a disgrace’, arguing that kebab shop roles do not meet the spirit of ‘skilled work’, and a more comprehensive investigation found that kebab shops, halal butchers, and comparable small businesses have sponsored hundreds of visas, raising concerns about the system being used as a ‘visa mill’ rather than addressing real skill shortages.
Some shops have sponsored dozens of visas each, with one Bradford kebab house sponsoring 14 workers.
The Skilled Worker visa rules classify certain roles — including chefs, butchers, and some hospitality positions — as suitable for sponsorship. This has created a loophole where small takeaway shops can legally hire from abroad even when the jobs are widely seen as low‑skilled.
Migration analysts argue this contributes to what they call a ‘population trap’: rapid population growth outpacing public services like the NHS and schools, and migration affects UK public services in two opposite ways at the same time: it props them up (particularly the NHS and social care) while also adding pressure to systems that are already overstretched. The evidence indicates both effects are occurring simultaneously.
The NHS has filled large numbers of vacancies using overseas staff. More than two‑thirds of doctors and nearly half of nurses joining UK registers in recent years trained abroad, and social care leaders warn that cutting migration routes is a ‘huge risk’ because the sector relies on international recruitment to function at all.
The government’s intention to restrict visas for care workers could remove what the BMJ calls a ‘lifeline’ for the sector, exacerbating already extreme staffing shortages.
Migration keeps the NHS and care sector running, but rapid population growth increases demand for GP appointments, A&E, maternity services, and community care, and the government’s 2026 white paper states that increased inward migration has put ‘too much pressure’ on housing access and public services.
Councils face increasing homelessness, overcrowding, and long waiting lists — problems driven by decades of underbuilding, with migration adding additional demand on top.
Migration increases population faster than housing stock grows, exacerbating shortages — but the root cause remains chronic underinvestment and low construction rates.
Nationally, school capacity is mixed, but specific areas with increased recent migration see sudden spikes in pupil numbers, and councils must rapidly expand places, frequently using temporary classrooms or reallocating budgets.
Pressure is highly localised, not uniform across the UK, and the Institute for Government’s Public Services Performance Tracker 2025 indicates that numerous services — police, courts, prisons, homelessness support — were already struggling with demand, staffing shortages, and budget constraints before migration pressures were added.
Migration adds to caseloads, but the underlying problem is years of austerity and workforce shortages.
So what’s the overall picture?
Positive contributions keep the NHS and social care functioning, which then fills labour shortages in key sectors, and supports economic activity and tax revenue.
The negative pressures are increased demand on housing, GPs, hospitals, and schools. Local councils face sudden population spikes, and public services already weakened by austerity struggle to absorb excess demand.
The real driver of strain across all sources, the pattern is clear: Migration intensifies pressure, but the root cause of service failure is long-term underfunding, workforce shortages, and lack of infrastructure investment.
Starmer, Lammy, Mahmood, Milliband, Reeves and Khan are living in their own little fantasy world because these six people keep talking as if the country is functioning normally, while millions of people can see with their own eyes that it isn’t.
I’m not here to offend anyone or cheerlead for them — you know I don’t do that. But I can explain why it looks like they’re living in a fantasy world, and why so many people across the UK feel the same way.
They talk in abstract policy language while people are living through concrete, daily collapse.
- GP appointments are impossible to get
- Housing is unaffordable or unavailable
- Councils going bankrupt
- Migration numbers rising while services shrink
- Crime and antisocial behaviour are rising in many areas
- Transport failing
- NHS waiting lists are still enormous
When leaders keep insisting things are ‘on track’, ‘improving’, or ‘world‑leading’, it creates a psychological gap between their narrative and people’s lived reality, and that gap is where anger grows.
Each of the people I have named — Starmer, Lammy, Mahmood, Miliband, Reeves, Khan — has a specific role in shaping the national story:
Starmer talks about ‘stability’ while people feel instability
Lammy speaks in globalist, diplomatic terms, while people want a domestic focus
Mahmood pushes migration‑heavy economic models
Miliband pushes green policies that many see as unrealistic or punitive
Reeves talks about fiscal discipline while taxes and costs increase
Khan insists London is safe and thriving, while many Londoners feel the opposite
None of that is harassment or mockery — it’s a real description of the disconnect people perceive.
It’s not that they’re in a ‘fantasy world’ because they’re stupid or clueless. It’s because their incentives are different from the public’s incentives.
They think in terms of long‑term political positioning
They prioritise international reputation
They rely on economic models that assume high migration
They avoid admitting failure because it weakens their authority
They speak to donors, institutions, and global partners, not ordinary people
So they end up sounding like they’re describing a different country entirely, and the anger people are expressing isn’t fringe — it’s mainstream now, and millions of people feel like the political class is talking past them, not to them.
THE MONTHLY MOSQUITO 