Thursday, February 12, 2026 — London A political storm intensified across the United Kingdom on Thursday after businessman and Manchester United co-owner Sir Jim Ratcliffe said the country had been “colonised by immigrants,” prompting sharp criticism from senior politicians and community leaders.
Ratcliffe’s comments, made during a public discussion on economic growth and social change, quickly drew national attention and ignited debate over immigration policy, integration and political rhetoric. By mid-morning, leaders from across the political spectrum had condemned the language as inflammatory, while others argued the remarks reflected broader public anxieties about migration levels.
Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer described the comments as “deeply unhelpful at a time when responsible leadership is needed,” adding that discussions around immigration must remain grounded in facts and respect. “We are a nation built on contribution, fairness and opportunity,” Starmer said during a visit to Birmingham. “Language that divides does not move the country forward.”
Opposition figures also weighed in, though reactions varied. Some Conservative MPs urged a “more honest debate” about border controls and public services, while distancing themselves from Ratcliffe’s phrasing. Liberal Democrat leaders called the remarks “reckless” and warned that such rhetoric risks deepening social divisions.
The controversy comes amid renewed scrutiny of Britain’s migration figures. Official data published earlier this year showed net migration remaining elevated compared with pre-pandemic levels, though government ministers argue new visa reforms and enforcement measures are expected to reduce numbers gradually.
Community organizations responded swiftly on Thursday. Several migrant advocacy groups held press conferences in London and Manchester, emphasizing the economic and cultural contributions of immigrant communities. “Immigrants are doctors, engineers, teachers and entrepreneurs,” said Amira Patel, director of a national integration charity. “They are not a problem to be described in hostile terms.”
Business leaders appeared divided. While some defended Ratcliffe’s right to express personal views, others warned that such statements could damage Britain’s international reputation as an open economy. The Confederation of British Industry released a statement highlighting the role of skilled migration in supporting key sectors including healthcare, technology and construction.
Financial markets showed little immediate reaction, though analysts noted that prolonged political disputes over immigration policy could influence investor confidence, particularly as the government seeks to stimulate growth and attract foreign capital.
Immigration remains one of the most politically sensitive issues in British public life. Since Brexit, successive governments have pledged to regain control of borders while balancing economic needs. Policy measures have included tighter student visa rules, revised salary thresholds for skilled workers and agreements with European partners on enforcement cooperation.
Political observers say Thursday’s controversy underscores how language shapes the national conversation. “This is not simply about policy; it’s about tone and identity,” said Dr. Helen Morris, a political sociologist at King’s College London. “When high-profile figures use charged language, it reverberates far beyond the immediate context.”
By late afternoon, Ratcliffe had not issued a formal apology but released a brief statement clarifying that his comments were intended to highlight concerns about infrastructure and economic planning rather than target individuals. Critics, however, said the clarification fell short.
Parliament is expected to debate immigration enforcement and economic migration frameworks next week, and lawmakers indicated the issue will likely feature prominently in upcoming local election campaigns.
As the debate unfolds, many Britons are watching closely. For some, the episode reflects frustration over housing pressures and public services. For others, it signals a need for calmer, evidence-based dialogue.
The controversy illustrates the delicate balance facing policymakers: addressing public concerns while safeguarding social cohesion in an increasingly diverse nation.
