**

**

Sir Keir Starmer took to his X account on a brisk Monday morning, his fingers flying over the keyboard. “Offensive and wrong. Jim Ratcliffe should apologise,” he wrote, a sentence that would echo through the corridors of power and the stands of Old Trafford alike.

The Prime Minister’s blunt demand was not a casual rebuke. It came after Ratcliffe, the 73‑year‑old billionaire who owns a significant stake in Manchester United and Ligue 1 side Nice, labeled the United Kingdom “colonised by immigrants” during a televised interview with Sky News.

“My economy can’t survive with nine million people on benefits and huge levels of immigrants coming in,” Ratcliffe warned, adding, “the population was 58 million in 2020, now it’s 70 million. That’s 12 million people.”

The Office for National Statistics had indeed reported a UK population of roughly 70 million in mid‑2024, up from 67 million in 2020 and 58.9 million at the turn of the millennium. Ratcliffe’s figure of “12 million” was a rounded approximation, but the sentiment sparked fierce debate.

Across social media, the reaction was immediate and polarized. Nigel Farage, leader of Reform UK, amplified Ratcliffe’s claim with a tweet: “Britain has undergone unprecedented mass immigration that has changed the character of many areas in our country. Labour may try to ignore that but Reform won’t.”

Farage’s endorsement was not isolated. Yarmouth MP Rupert Lowe, speaking to a local radio station, praised Ratcliffe’s candor: “Ratcliffe is right. I respect him for having the balls to say it. It’s a fact the UK has been colonised by immigrants; no point pussy‑footing around it.”

Yet the very same comments that found support in some corners attracted vehement condemnation from others. Manchester United supporters, already wary of Ratcliffe’s ownership since he bought a stake on 24 December 2023, erupted in protest.

The fan‑led group The ‘58’ branded the billionaire “a total embarrassment,” while the Manchester United Supporters Trust accused him of marginalising the club’s diverse fanbase.

Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham, who has been closely involved with United’s £2 billion stadium project, described Ratcliffe’s remarks as antithetical to Manchester’s heritage: “His words go against everything for which Manchester has traditionally stood.”

Kick It Out, the anti‑discrimination campaign in English football, issued a scathing statement: “Sir Jim Ratcliffe’s comments are disgraceful and deeply divisive at a time when football does so much to bring communities together. His inaccurate figures ignore the cultural enrichment immigrants bring to Manchester.”

The government, too, moved swiftly. A No 10 spokesperson echoed Starmer’s demand: “Jim Ratcliffe should immediately apologise. His offensive remarks are wrong and play into the hands of those who want to divide our country.”

Justice Minister Jake Richards added a personal jab, calling Ratcliffe “hypocritical” for criticizing immigration while having moved to Monaco to “save £4 billion in tax.”

“It‑might be worth questioning whether he is the patriot we need to comment on this issue,” Richards said.

Amid the condemnations, Ratcliffe remained undeterred. In his Sky News interview, he suggested that Sir Keir Starmer might be “too nice” for the heavy decisions required to rescue the UK economy, which had only grown 0.1 % in the final quarter of the previous year.

“I like him, but it’s a tough job and you have to do some difficult things to get the UK back on track,” Ratcliffe asserted, casting doubt on the Prime Minister’s resolve.

The backlash grew in intensity on the day that 219 migrants landed on British shores, pushing the total number of irregular arrivals by small boat to 65,922 since Starmer took office in July 2024 – a record surpassing the figures under any previous prime minister.

Sir Keir’s government had already made a high‑profile change by scrapping the previous Rwanda asylum deal, a policy designed to deter crossings. Labour’s flagship immigration approach now centres on a “one‑in, one‑out” arrangement with France, allowing a limited number of migrants to be returned across the Channel.

Outside the Westminster battlefield, the crisis deepened the pressure on Starmer’s leadership. Within weeks of the Ratcliffe controversy, the Prime Minister weathered a storm of resignations that threatened to topple his administration.

Lord Peter Mandelson, a senior Labour figure and former European Trade Commissioner, resigned after a scandal involving undisclosed meetings in the United States, precipitating a cascade of exits.

Chief of Staff Morgan McSweeney handed in his resignation on a Sunday, citing “personal reasons,” while communications director Tim Allen quit the next day, stating he wanted “a new team to take over in Number Ten.”

These departures left Starstarred with a thin margin of support. Yet, after an emergency meeting with his Parliamentary Labour Party, the Prime Minister affirmed he would not step down.

He received backing from Deputy Leader Angela Rayner and Shadow Chancellor Rachel Reeves, both of whom publicly endorsed his continued premiership. Mayor Andy Burnham also reiterated his support, highlighting the need for stable leadership amid turbulence.

The political maelstrom was not confined to the Labour benches. Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar joined opposition leaders in urging Starmer to consider resignation, intensifying the intra‑party strain.

Amid this swirling unrest, another controversy simmered over a peerage bestowed by Starmer in December 2023. Lord Matthew Doyle, a former adviser and close confidant of Sir Keir, was elevated to the House of Lords despite alleged ties to Sean Morton, a councillor later convicted for possessing indecent images of children.

Lord Doyle had campaigned for Morton in the 2017 independent election and publicly defended him before the case was concluded. When Morton was finally convicted in 2017, Doyle issued an apology, claiming he had “extremely limited” contact with the councillor thereafter.

Party chair Anna Turley demanded Doyle’s removal from the Upper House, arguing he had never been truthful about his association with Morton. The Sunday Times reported that Downing Street had examined the matter prior to the peerage announcement on 10 December 2023, suggesting a possible lapse in vetting.

Tory leader Kemi Badenoch called on Starmer to publish the vetting reports, accusing the Labour government of a “lack of due diligence.”

Education Minister Georgia Gould, speaking from a broadcast studio, defended the Prime Minister’s decision, saying he “has looked at this afresh, given the commitment that he has made to ensure the highest standards in public life.”

All the while, the numbers on immigration continued to climb. The Home Office disclosed that the UK’s total population had risen to 70 million in mid‑2024, up by three million since 2020, confirming the rapid demographic shift Ratcliffe had highlighted.

Yet critics argued that his figures were deliberately inflated; the Office for National Statistics recorded a rise from 67 million in 2020 to 70 million in 2024, not the 12‑million surge he claimed.

The argument over raw data became a proxy for a deeper cultural battle. For Ratcliffe, the surge represented a fiscal burden on public services, while for many football fans, it underscored the diversity that enriched the sport and the city.

In the stands of Old Trafford, chants of “We are United” mingled with murmurs of “Leave them out,” reflecting the nation’s split. The Manchester United Supporters Trust issued a statement reminding the club’s hierarchy that “Manchester United has a diverse fan base and plays in a city whose cultural history has been enriched by immigrants.”

Even the protest group The ‘58’ leveraged social media to lambast Ratcliffe, posting images of the billionaire’s speeches alongside historic photos of Manchester’s immigrant communities, juxtaposing the past with his present accusations.

Ratcliffe, aware of his dwindling popularity, responded in a later interview: “I’ve been very unpopular at Manchester United because we’ve made lots of changes, but for the better. I think we’re beginning to see some evidence in the football club that’s beginning to pay off.”

His fortunes, however, have been in decline. The Sunday Times Rich List for 2025 placed Ratcliffe’s net worth at £17 billion, making him the seventh‑richest Briton, yet his assets have shrunk by roughly £6 billion over the past year, a loss attributed largely to the costly overhaul of Manchester United.

Despite his financial setbacks, Ratcliffe’s political posture remained steadfast. He disclosed a meeting with Reform UK leader Nigel Farage, describing the right‑wing firebrand as “an intelligent man” with “good intentions.”

“I think it needs somebody who’s prepared to be unpopular for a period of time to get the big issues sorted,” Ratcliffe said, drawing a parallel between Farage’s and Starmer’s challenges.

The entire episode reached a climax when the Prime Minister’s Justice Minister Jake Richards publicly called Ratcliffe’s criticism “hypocritical,” reminding the public of the billionaire’s Monaco tax residence.

For many observers, the drama highlighted a widening rift between the UK’s political elite and its working‑class base, mediated through the micro‑cosm of football, a sport that traditionally unites.

As the week closed, the House of Commons debated immigration reforms while Sir Keir Starmer faced a question on his leadership that went beyond policy: could he navigate the tumultuous seas of public opinion, media scrutiny, and internal dissent?

In a quiet moment after the debate, Starmer retweeted his own earlier declaration, insisting that “Benign and inclusive rhetoric must not replace decisive action on our economy and borders.”

The story of Sir Jim Ratcliffe’s incendiary remarks thus became more than a headline—it turned into a litmus test for Britain’s identity, its tolerance for outspoken critique, and the resilience of its democratic institutions.

Whether the Prime Minister will eventually accept an apology from Ratcliffe or stand firm in his condemnation remains to be seen. What is clear, however, is that the conversation about immigration, fiscal responsibility, and national character will continue to dominate the political arena, the football terraces, and the living rooms of ordinary Britons for months, if not years, to come.

The saga serves as a reminder that in modern Britain, a billionaire’s off‑hand comment can spark debates that echo from the parliamentary benches to the chants of fans – a testament to a nation forever balancing its proud, diverse past with an uncertain future.