PM Demands Apology from Sir Jim Ratcliffe Over ‘Colonised by Immigrants’ Remark

Introduction: A significant political and public controversy has erupted following comments by Sir Jim Ratcliffe, the billionaire co-owner of Manchester United, who stated that the United Kingdom has been “colonised by way of immigrants.” Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has publicly labelled the remarks “offensive and improper” and called for an apology. This incident has ignited a fierce debate about immigration rhetoric, the responsibilities of influential public figures, and the language used to describe demographic change. This article provides a comprehensive, SEO-optimised analysis of the event, its context, and its broader societal implications, structured for clarity and educational value.

Key Points at a Glance

• Core Incident: Sir Jim Ratcliffe, in a Sky News interview, claimed the UK was “colonised by immigrants,” linking this to economic strain and high benefit claims.
• Official Response: Prime Minister Keir Starmer condemned the language as offensive and demanded an apology, stating Britain is a “proud, tolerant and diverse nation.”
• Fan & Charity Backlash: Multiple Manchester United fan groups and anti-racism charities condemned the remarks as divisive and echoing far-right narratives.
• Factual Discrepancy: Ratcliffe’s claim of a 12 million population increase (from 58m to 70m) is incorrect; official ONS data shows a rise of approximately 2.7 million from 2020 to 2025.
• Context: Ratcliffe, a Brexit supporter who moved to Monaco, framed his comments as a call for “tough” political leadership on immigration and welfare.
• Political Reactions: Leaders across the spectrum, including Ed Davey and Nigel Farage, weighed in, highlighting the deep political divides on immigration policy.

Background: Who is Sir Jim Ratcliffe and What Did He Say?

Sir Jim Ratcliffe is a prominent British businessman, the founder of the chemical giant INEOS, and, as of 2024, a 27.7% stakeholder in Manchester United Football Club. With a net worth estimated at £17 billion by the Sunday Times Rich List, he is one of the UK’s wealthiest individuals. His public comments often touch on business, politics, and national economic policy.

The remarks in question were made during an interview with Sky News’ economic editor Ed Conway on the sidelines of the European Industry Summit in Antwerp, Belgium. Ratcliffe criticised UK immigration levels and welfare dependency, stating: “You cannot have an economic environment with 9 million people on benefits and large levels of immigrants coming in.” He then used the term that sparked the firestorm: “I mean, the UK has been colonised. It’s costing too much money. The UK has been colonised by immigrants, in reality, hasn’t it? I mean, the population of the UK was 58 million in 2020, now it is 70 million. That’s 12 million people.”

He linked this to a need for politically difficult decisions, comparing the required leadership to his own restructuring of Manchester United, which included significant job cuts and managerial changes. He also described meeting Reform UK leader Nigel Farage, calling him an “intelligent man,” while adding a similar assessment of Keir Starmer’s initial entry into politics.

Analysis: Deconstructing the Controversy

The reaction to Ratcliffe’s comments was swift and severe, cutting across politics, football, and civil society. The analysis reveals several critical layers: the problematic nature of the “colonised” terminology, the factual inaccuracies presented, and the underlying political narrative.

The Historical and Emotional Weight of “Colonised”

The term “colonised” is not neutral. It carries the immense historical baggage of empire, conquest, subjugation, and the denial of self-determination. Applying it to contemporary immigration, particularly in a national context, is widely perceived as inflammatory. As the Manchester United Muslim Supporters Club stated, the term “is not neutral” and “echoes language often used in far-right narratives that frame migrants as invaders and demographic threats.” This framing transforms a complex demographic and economic discussion into a story of an external force overwhelming and occupying a homeland. This rhetoric is seen as deliberately provocative and corrosive to social cohesion.

Fact-Checking the Population Claim

Ratcliffe’s argument was underpinned by a dramatic population statistic: an increase from 58 million to 70 million in five years. This is substantially incorrect. According to the UK Office for National Statistics (ONS), the estimated mid-year population of the UK in 2020 was 66.7 million. The estimate for mid-2025 is 69.4 million. This represents an increase of approximately 2.7 million people, not 12 million. This significant discrepancy undermines the factual basis of his claim about a rapid, overwhelming demographic shift. The actual growth is part of a longer-term trend influenced by birth rates, death rates, and net migration, not a sudden “colonisation.”

The “Tough Decisions” Narrative and Political Parallels

Ratcliffe framed his comments within a familiar populist narrative: that the political class is too timid to address “major issues” like immigration and welfare dependency. He suggested solving these required leaders “prepared to be unpopular for a period of time.” This mirrors rhetoric often used to justify controversial policies, suggesting that popular consent is a barrier to necessary action. His comparison to his actions at Manchester United—making 450 redundancies and overhauling management—frames socio-economic policy with the same blunt, cost-cutting logic applied to a private business, a comparison many find inappropriate for the complexities of national governance and human migration.

Reactions from the Football and Civil Society World

The backlash was particularly notable because it came from within the Manchester United community, an institution with a massive, diverse global fanbase.

• Manchester United Supporters Trust (MUST): Stated unequivocally that no fan should feel excluded based on race, religion, or background. It argued that comments from the club’s senior revenue holder should “make inclusion easier, not harder,” positioning the issue as one of club values and unity, not just politics.
• Manchester United Muslim Supporters Club: Expressed being “deeply concerned,” directly linking the language to far-right tropes about demographic replacement.
• Anti-Racism Charities: Organisations like Show Racism the Red Card and Kick It Out condemned the comments as “disgraceful and deeply divisive,” arguing that football’s cultural influence should be used to challenge racism, not amplify divisive narratives.
• The 1958 Group: A supporters’ group criticised Ratcliffe for “commenting on the issues of our nation whilst living in Monaco to avoid paying tax,” introducing a layer of critique regarding his personal residency and fiscal contribution to the UK he was critiquing.

Practical Advice: Navigating Difficult Conversations on Immigration

This incident underscores the challenge of discussing immigration—a legitimate and critical policy area—without resorting to dehumanising or historically charged language. For public figures, community leaders, and individuals engaging in these debates, consider the following:

1. Choose Precision Over Provocation: Avoid metaphors like “colonised,” “invasion,” or “swamping.” These are emotionally charged, historically loaded, and shut down reasoned debate. Instead, use specific, data-driven language about policy: net migration figures, visa categories, asylum processing times, or economic impact studies.
2. Verify Statistics: Ensure all demographic and economic data is accurate and from authoritative sources like the ONS, Home Office, or OECD. Misrepresenting data, as in this case, fatally damages credibility and fuels misinformation.
3. Separate Policy from Prejudice: It is possible to advocate for stricter immigration controls or different integration policies without framing immigrants as a monolithic, threatening group. Focus on systemic and policy solutions rather than attributing broad societal problems to the presence of specific groups.
4. Acknowledge Complexity: Immigration intersects with economics, housing, healthcare, and global instability. Reducing it to a single cause of national problems is an oversimplification that ignores nuance and hinders finding effective, compassionate solutions.
5. Consider Platform and Influence: Individuals with significant public platforms, especially those in roles like sports ownership with diverse followings, have a heightened responsibility. Their words can legitimise prejudice or foster inclusion. The response from fan groups demonstrates that communities are holding such figures accountable for the social impact of their words.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Did Sir Jim Ratcliffe actually say the UK was “colonised”?

Yes. In an interview with Sky News’ Ed Conway on February 12, 2026, Sir Jim Ratcliffe stated: “The UK has been colonised by immigrants, in reality, hasn’t it?” This is the direct quote that prompted the demand for an apology.

Was his claim about the UK population increase correct?

No. Ratcliffe claimed the population rose from 58 million in 2020 to 70 million, a 12 million increase. Official Office for National Statistics (ONS) estimates show the population was 66.7 million in mid-2020 and 69.4 million in mid-2025—an increase of approximately 2.7 million, not 12 million.

Why is the term “colonised” considered so offensive in this context?

The term “colonisation” refers to the historical process of one nation establishing political control over another, often involving settlement, exploitation, and suppression of the indigenous population. Applying it to voluntary immigration to a sovereign nation misuses the term and evokes imagery of an occupying force, which can be seen as dehumanising immigrants and stoking fears of demographic replacement. It is a staple of far-right and anti-immigrant rhetoric.

What was the official government response?

A No. 10 Downing Street spokesperson called the comments “offensive” and stated they “play into the palms of those who want to divide our nation.” Prime Minister Keir Starmer directly said the remarks were “offensive and improper” and called on Ratcliffe to apologise, affirming that Britain is a “proud, tolerant and diverse nation.”

How did Manchester United and its fanbase react?

Manchester United itself had not issued a formal statement at the time of writing, but the BBC reported it was approached for comment. The reaction from official fan groups was universally negative. The Manchester United Supporters Trust (MUST), the Manchester United Muslim Supporters Club, and other groups condemned the language as divisive, exclusionary, and contrary to the club’s values of inclusivity. The 1958 Group also criticised Ratcliffe’s tax residency in Monaco.

Conclusion: Beyond an Apology – A Debate on Language and Leadership

The demand for Sir Jim Ratcliffe to apologise is more than a request for a single retraction. It is a pivotal moment highlighting the intense scrutiny on the language used to describe immigration in the UK. The incident serves as a case study in how powerful economic actors can inject themselves into the national political conversation, sometimes using rhetoric that many find dangerously reductive and inflammatory.

The Prime Minister’s intervention correctly identifies the core issue: language that frames immigrants as a colonising force is not a contribution to a serious policy debate; it is a divisive trope that undermines social harmony. The overwhelming condemnation from football supporters’ trusts and anti-racism organisations signifies that this is not merely a left-right political dispute, but a broader societal concern about maintaining an inclusive public sphere.

While the debate over immigration levels, economic impact, and border control is valid and necessary, this episode demonstrates that the framing of that debate is critically important. Using historically weighted terms like “colonised,” especially when paired with demonstrable factual errors, poisons the well of public discourse. The path forward requires leaders in all sectors—business, sport, and politics—to engage with the complexities of immigration with precision, empathy, and a commitment to truth, recognising that their words carry weight beyond their immediate intent. The call for an apology is, at its heart, a call for a more responsible and truthful national conversation.

Sources and Further Reading

• Sky News Interview with Sir Jim Ratcliffe and Ed Conway (Primary Source, February 12, 2026).
• Office for National Statistics (ONS), UK Population Estimates, 2020-2025. www.ons.gov.uk.
• Official Statements from No. 10 Downing Street, as reported by BBC News and Reuters.
• Public Statements from Manchester United Supporters Trust (MUST), Manchester United Muslim Supporters Club, Kick It Out, and Show Racism the Red Card (via social media and press releases).
• Sunday Times Rich List 2025 for net worth data.
• Historical context on colonialism and migration: Academic sources from institutions like the Runnymede Trust and the Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford.