Backlash Against Sir Jim Ratcliffe’s “Colonised by Migrants” Claim, By Richard Miller (London)
The backlash against Sir Jim Ratcliffe's blunt claim that Britain has been "colonised by immigrants" isn't just predictable outrage — it's the smoking gun that proves he was spot on. In Steven Tucker's February 23, 2026, piece for The Daily Sceptic, the "ritual punishment" meted out to the billionaire Manchester United co-owner and INEOS founder serves as Exhibit A: Britain's governing class, media, football establishment, and political elite have enforced a taboo so fiercely that even hinting at demographic transformation triggers a full-spectrum takedown. The ferocity of the response, Tucker argues, reveals a system colonised not (only) by newcomers, but by a self-loathing, traitorous white elite that polices thought to protect the narrative of unchecked mass migration.
What Ratcliffe Actually Said — and the Immediate Pile-On
In a mid-February 2026 Sky News interview, Ratcliffe, Monaco-based, one of Britain's richest men, and partial owner of Manchester United — laid it bare:
"You can't have an economy with nine million people on benefits and huge levels of immigrants coming in... The UK is being colonised by immigrants, really, isn't it? I mean, the population of the UK was 58 million in 2020, now it's 70 million. That's 12 million people... It's costing too much money."
He tied it to economic strain, benefits dependency, and a lack of political will to act (calling PM Keir Starmer "too nice" for tough decisions). The stats were sloppy (net migration drove much of the growth, but figures weren't quite that stark), yet the core point echoed longstanding concerns about rapid demographic change, resource pressure, and integration.
The reaction was swift and savage:
Prime Minister Keir Starmer branded it "offensive and wrong," demanded a full apology, and hailed Britain as a "proud, tolerant and diverse country."
Football world erupted: Manchester United's Muslim Supporters Club called it "appalling" and divisive; fans accused him of far-Right rhetoric; anti-racism groups like Kick It Out expressed "disappointment" even after light sanctions.
Media and politicians piled on with accusations of hypocrisy (from a tax-haven resident), historical illiteracy, and stoking hate.
FA investigation followed, though he ultimately dodged serious charges — merely "reminded of his responsibilities" as a football figure, which critics like Kick It Out decried as too lenient.
Ratcliffe issued a qualified apology: sorry for the "choice of language" offending people, but he stood by the need for "controlled and well-managed immigration that supports economic growth."
Tucker frames this as classic "ritual punishment": a high-profile figure steps outside the Overton Window on immigration, gets publicly flogged, forces a grovelling (partial) recantation, and the system signals: thou shalt not notice demographic replacement.
Tucker's Core Argument: The Backlash Proves the Colonisation
Drawing on Renaud Camus's "Great Replacement" framework, Tucker posits two colonisations:
1.Actual demographic influx reshaping cities and culture.
2.Ideological colonisation by a native white governing class that facilitates it — through open borders, multiculturalism dogma, and suppression of dissent — while betraying their own heritage.
The "traitorous white colonial governing class" isn't immigrants; it's the Left-led establishment, BBC commentators, football PR machines, and corporate virtue-signallers who enforce speech codes. Their disproportionate fury at Ratcliffe's use of "colonised" (a word loaded with Britain's imperial guilt) shows the third rail: acknowledge migration's scale and costs, and you're excommunicated.
Why does the backlash validate him?
If Britain weren't profoundly changed by mass immigration, the word "colonised" would land as hyperbole, not heresy.
The elite's panic reveals insecurity: they know public sentiment simmers (polls show immigration topping voter concerns), so they must crush outliers to maintain control.
Ratcliffe — a self-made billionaire, not a fringe activist — should have been untouchable. That even he gets ritually humiliated proves the taboo's power.
Tucker echoes reader sentiments: natives are "hated for no other reason than we live here," while incomers "quite deliberately colonise our major cities." The governing class's response isn't defence of diversity — it's defence of the project.
Why This Matters Beyond Britain
This isn't isolated. Similar dynamics play out in Australia: question rapid intake, demographic shifts in suburbs like western Sydney or Melbourne's outer areas, or housing/ services strain, and you're labelled racist or divisive. Pauline Hanson's One Nation surges precisely because mainstream parties (Labor under Albanese, Liberals) dismiss concerns as bigotry. The "ritual punishment" of figures who speak plainly — whether Ratcliffe, Hanson, or everyday voices — keeps the debate frozen.
Ratcliffe's ordeal shows the coloniser isn't always external. It's often the homegrown elite that opens the gates, then polices the natives for complaining. His (partial) apology under fire doesn't disprove the point — it underscores how deeply the ideological colonisation runs.
Sir Jim was right, and the howling proves it. The question now: how many more ritual punishments before the public stops apologising for noticing?
