“I mean, the UK has been colonised. It’s costing too much money. The UK has been colonised by immigrants, really, hasn’t it?”

Bannatyne entered the debate by replying “Here, here” to former Sun editor Kelvin MacKenzie, who said Sir Jim “is to be listened to”.

MacKenzie had argued:

“Certainly in some parts of the country the density of migrants makes you wonder if you are still in Britain. He and his company have paid more tax to our Exchequer over the years than all his critics put together.”

The message was clear. This was not just a business comment. It was a cultural one.

Clash Over Who Pays and Who Costs

The backing from Bannatyne sparked an immediate pushback.

University professor Dr Kehinde Ross challenged the framing, arguing migrants contribute significantly to the UK economy.

“Migrants were in Britain because we had a massive shortage of people to work in the care sector.”

“Then another lot of migrants pay visa fees, health surcharge as well as tax and National Insurance contributions. What does [Sir Jim] mean by ‘They are costing too much money’?”

Bannatyne fired back directly:

“You think all the male fighting class immigrants arriving by boats now are paying for their own accommodation and food and medical bills and legal representation?”

He also amplified a message stating:

“The more millionaires and billionaires that speak out, the stronger our voice becomes.”

This is where the argument shifts from statistics to lived reality.

For many voters, particularly in coastal towns and working-class communities, small boat crossings and asylum accommodation costs are visible and immediate issues.

Official figures show 65,000 migrants have crossed the Channel since the General Election, according to Shadow Home Secretary Chris Philp.

“The ones who should be apologising are Keir Starmer and Shabana Mahmood… for allowing 65,000 migrants to cross the Channel since the General Election,” Philp told GB News.

Starmer Under Pressure From All Sides

Prime Minister Keir Starmer has condemned Ratcliffe’s remarks as:

“Offensive and wrong. Britain is a proud, tolerant and diverse country. Jim Ratcliffe should apologise.”

No10 later claimed the comments “play into the hands of those who want to divide our country”.

But Ratcliffe also aimed criticism at Starmer personally.

He said the country needed a leader “prepared to be unpopular for a period” and warned that while Sir Keir is “a nice man”, he may not be tough enough to get Britain “back on track”.

The Prime Minister now faces pressure from both directions. Critics say he is too soft on illegal migration. Supporters argue strong language fuels division.

Meanwhile, Bannatyne defended Ratcliffe’s residence in Monaco, saying:

“There is a difference to moving to Monaco and paying into the system, and arriving in the UK in a small dinghy, penniless.”

The deeper issue is this.

The immigration debate is no longer confined to Westminster. It has spilled into business leaders, celebrities and football ownership.

When prominent figures start openly challenging government policy, it signals something bigger than a social media spat.

Voters see record net migration figures. They see small boat crossings. They see stretched services. The Government sees rhetoric it considers inflammatory.

Until the numbers fall and border control appears decisive, these rows will not disappear.

They will intensify.