Sir Jim Ratcliffe, the British billionaire and co-owner of Manchester United, has drawn intense political and public scrutiny after claiming that the United Kingdom has been “colonised by immigrants” and that rising immigration has strained the benefits system. In a high-profile interview on Sky News he also suggested that the UK economy contains “nine million people on benefits”, assertions that critics say misrepresent official data and feed divisive narratives.
The controversy has sparked responses from political leaders, anti-racism organisations and commentators, with Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer among those demanding a full apology. This article assesses the facts behind Ratcliffe’s claims, placing them in context with official statistics and expert analysis.
Ratcliffe’s remarks and the backlash
On 11 February 2026, Sir Jim spoke to Sky News economics editor Ed Conway about economic pressures facing the UK. During the exchange he said the country had been “colonised by immigrants” and linked population growth and immigration to increased public spending on benefits and social support. Reuters reported that Ratcliffe later apologised if his “choice of language” had offended people, stating he wanted to highlight the need for controlled and well-managed immigration to support economic growth.
The comments drew criticism from senior political figures including Prime Minister Starmer, who labelled them “offensive and wrong”, and Health Secretary Wes Streeting, who described the use of the term “colonised” as “disgraceful”. Anti-racism bodies and supporters’ groups associated with Manchester United also condemned the remarks, warning they risked stoking division rather than constructive debate.
Population figures and immigration
Ratcliffe’s suggestion that immigration has dramatically increased the UK population to an extent amounting to “colonisation” warrants examination. According to the Office for National Statistics (ONS), the UK’s resident population was approximately 67 million in mid-2020 and is estimated at around 70 million in mid-2024, a rise largely driven by natural change and international migration, but not indicative of “colonisation” in any historical or demographic sense.
Critics have noted that using charged language to describe population change overlooks the complexity of migration patterns and the demographic factors involved. Immigration contributes to population increase, but the term “colonised” carries historical and political connotations that many commentators argue are inappropriate and inflammatory in today’s UK context.
Benefits statistics and economic context
Ratcliffe’s remarks also linked immigration to public spending on benefits. The claim that “nine million people” are on benefits in the UK reflects a misinterpretation of categories and data. Official figures from the Department for Work and Pensions show that benefit numbers include a range of programmes, from pensions to Universal Credit, disability support and unemployment allowances. Not all claimants are immigrants, and many are long-term residents or nationals.
Analysts point out that benefits data is complex and cannot be simplistically attributed to immigration. The UK has an ageing population alongside ongoing labour market challenges, and benefits expenditure reflects structural social and economic factors as much as demographic shifts. There is no credible evidence that immigration alone is the principal driver of public spending increases. This type of mischaracterisation has parallels with long-standing “immigrant benefits” myths that have circulated in various countries, which research has shown are empirically unfounded.
Political and social implications
The debate over Ratcliffe’s comments has unfolded against a backdrop of wider political sensitivity around immigration policy in the UK, a subject that figures prominently in domestic politics. While policy discussions about the scale and management of migration, skills shortages and economic impacts are legitimate, political analysts emphasise that they require clear data and careful framing to avoid inflaming social tensions.
Starmer and other senior figures have underscored that the UK’s identity as a tolerant, diverse society should inform debates on immigration. They argue that focusing on economic arguments tied to labour markets, skills and productivity is more constructive than rhetoric that could be interpreted as exclusionary.
Ratcliffe’s broader profile
Sir Jim Ratcliffe is best known as the founder and chairman of the petrochemicals firm INEOS, a conglomerate that operates globally. He also became a minority owner of Manchester United in 2024, with significant influence over football operations at one of England’s most prominent clubs. His business interests have at times intersected with public policy debates, including tax, investment and industrial strategy.
The intersection of Ratcliffe’s business profile with political commentary has intensified interest in his words. Some critics point to his own international tax residency and business lobbying for state support as part of broader discussions about corporate responsibility and public discourse.
Fact-checking key assertions
To summarise the claims and evidence:
“UK has been colonised by immigrants”: This phrasing is historically and demographically inaccurate. Population growth is driven by migration and natural factors, not colonisation.
Population rise figures: ONS data supports a modest increase from around 67 million to 70 million over recent years; this is consistent with long-term demographic trends.
Benefits system pressures: Benefits numbers cannot be directly linked to immigration alone. Claiming that immigrants disproportionately drive benefit claims lacks robust statistical backing.
Broad consensus among demographic researchers and economists is that immigration has mixed economic effects, including contributions to labour markets and public finances. The narrative that immigration inherently burdens public services is not supported by comprehensive empirical evidence.
The wider conversation
The controversy illustrates the challenge of public figures commenting on sensitive societal issues. It highlights the need for accuracy and nuance in framing discussions about immigration, population change and economic policy. Misinformation or sensational language can deepen divides, whereas data-driven debate is more likely to inform effective policy.
As the UK continues to reassess its approach to immigration and labour shortages, policymakers and commentators alike face the task of grounding their arguments in verified evidence and clear analysis.
The story will continue to evolve as political reactions develop and further expert commentary emerges.
