Authored by Charles Johnson via TheCritic.co.uk,

Far more energy has gone into condemning his phrasing than confronting the questions he raised...

Sir Jim Ratcliffe’s statement that Britain has been “colonised by immigrants” has sparked a fierce reaction.

From Starmer to Bluesky, to the Athletic and all the football social media pundits in between, the co-owner of  Manchester United has been bombarded with the same attack lines repeatedly.

He has been called a tax dodging, racist immigrant hypocrite.

Such an uproar has flared up in such a short space of time because Ratcliffe is radically different from those who have issued similar statements before. Ratcliffe is not a political figure: you do not see billionaires nor football club owners voicing discontent like this. The pushback has been fierce because Ratcliffe has no political incentive to say any of this. He isn’t running for office, seeking favour, or chasing votes — which makes his intervention harder to dismiss. Part of the backlash, too, reflects an unease that his diagnosis may be accurate.

The remarks came from an initial conversation regarding the economic challenges Britain faces in general, not solely on immigration. The snippet that has been so widely shared is merely part of a wider statement of the economic problems Britain faces; Ratcliffe refers to the issues of “immigration” and “nine million people” on benefits simultaneously.

Colonised is a strong opening salvo for a figure such as Ratcliffe, who is not known for any previous anti-migration stance. This generated responses of tone policing from his critics – cries that his choice of words were “disgraceful and deeply divisive” and that “this language and leadership has no place in English football” from Kick It Out, a notable “Anti Racism” football pressure group. There was no attempt to argue or debate: this was no more than tone policing, of “mate mate mate, you can’t say that mate”. It did not engage with the substantive point. It was not an argument.

The Prime Minister has pushed for Ratcliffe to apologise. Less than a year ago, Starmer was referring to Britain as an ”Island of Strangers”; he has little argument here. Sir Ed Davey has stated that Ratcliffe is “totally wrong” and is “out of step with British Values”. Once again this is weak tone policing, not an argument. Regardless, which British values are being violated in particular? What are British values precisely meant to mean here?

The fact is that Ratcliffe’s vocabulary choice is nowhere near as divisive as the impacts of mass migration in the last quarter century.

Mass migration is the most important issue in British political debate. It has bought sectarianism, Bengali and Palestinian politics swinging both local council and Parliamentary elections, a deepening of housing crisis, the rape and murder of British women from taxpayer funded hotels and programs which bloat the welfare state even further. It is undeniable mass migration has defined British politics of the 2010s onwards. It has been much more harmful and divisive than any comment made by Sir Jim Ratcliffe. His words are nothing compared to the actions of Deng Chol Majek, or Hedash Kebatu, to name a couple of examples.

Critics have also cried that Ratcliffe is “an immigrant himself, dodging tax in Monaco”. The difference between Ratcliffe and migration into Britain is so different they are almost incomparable. In the 2017/18 tax year Ratcliffe was the fifth highest taxpayer in the country, footing a bill of £110.5 million. With such an extraordinarily high bill, it is no wonder that he has since moved to Monaco. Meanwhile, the average salary of of a migrant entering Britain in 2023 (which has fallen by £10,000 since 2021) was £32,946, according to a report by the Centre for Migration Control. From this we can estimate a migrant would pay about £5,000 in income tax. That means it would take over 22,000 (statistically average) migrants to foot the tax bill that Ratcliffe paid in one year alone. Ratcliffe has been an exceptional cash cow to the British state. He has been taxed incredible amounts and contributed more to this country than almost anyone currently living; to call him hypocritical since he dared to criticise migration and its impact on the welfare state is simply not fair.

Census data from the ONS in 2021 shows that migrants from four nations – Somalia, Nigeria, Jamaica and Bangladesh – head over 104,000 social homes in London alone. With such incredible numbers of subsidised housing going to foreign born nationals, it is absolutely correct to state that mass migration is costing the British economy a fortune. The same census states that over 70% of Somali born households are in social housing in England and Wales, whilst also being of lowest contributors to income tax in the nation – paying well under the £5,000 stated per head previously. The increase and sheer scale of benefit reliance for many immigrants in Britain is not sustainable, and it is a problem that is right to be addressed.

Perhaps the most nonsensical argument presented by some is that as co-owner of Manchester United he employs a significant number of immigrant players. Bruno Fernandes is not living in social housing in Wythenshawe. Benjamin Sesko is not in a single bed council flat in Hulme. When he arrived in Manchester last year, the first thing Senne Lammens did was not register for Universal Credit. Not a single foreign player is a drain on the state. They are, as elite athletes in the most lucrative league in the world, very clearly exceptions to the norm of British migration. The difference between Bruno Fernandes, who earns a reported £300,000 a week, and the over 40% of Bangladeshi immigrants who are economically inactive should really not need spelling out. We are referring to just 17 foreign senior team players who all earn more in a week than the average migrant – or Brit – will earn in a year. It is ludicrous  to even attempt to compare the two. Regardless, employing or working with immigrants does not mean you waive your right to criticise the state of affairs in Britain. As an Englishman, Sir Jim Ratcliffe has a given and inalienable right to comment on the affairs of his country.

Ratcliffe’s critics have entirely focused on his choice of the word “colonised”, and how they consider it inflammatory. This choice of phrase was not entirely accurate or intentional by Ratcliffe – proved by the fact he issued an apology over his “choice of language”, rather than the substance and argument behind his critique of the broader economic challenge of Britain.

The bottom line is, Ratcliffe was right to raise a perfectly reasonable concern. He is directionally correct, and close enough to the truth that the obsessive focus around his phrasing is both absurd and clearly no more than a tactic to dodge the substance of his argument entirely.

His critics have been intentionally evasive around the underlying subject: it is a harsh, necessary truth they have no reply too.

They avoid the debate because, despite his wording being wrong, Ratcliffe is right.