Bridget Phillipson has hit out at Manchester United owner Sir Jim Ratcliffe after the billionaire said the UK was “on the slide”.
Speaking to GB News, the Labour Party chair and equalities minister said she wasn’t interested in a “tax exile’s” opinion on the country’s direction.
Stories
Videos
Your Say
However, the billionaire argued that the UK was now “on the slide” despite its great history.
“Nobody’s tough enough to deal with the immigration problem. Nobody’s tough enough to deal with the benefits problem”, he told the BBC.
“But somebody needs to do it.”
His comments echoed remarks he made in February, when the Manchester United owner warned of the same crises.
Sir Jim Ratcliffe has warned the UK is ‘on the slide’ amid serious ‘immigration and benefits’ problems
|
PA
“You can’t have an economy with nine million people on benefits and huge levels of immigrants coming in.
“I mean, the UK has been colonised. It’s costing too much money,” he said at the time.
Keen to get Ms Phillipson’s take on the comments, GB News’s Camilla Tominey asked the minister: “PIP benefits are set to double by 2030. The welfare bill isn’t coming down. So basically we’re going to have a budget on October 28, which hammers working people.
“Meanwhile, those who don’t work are going to be given a handout.
LATEST DEVELOPMENTS
Bridget Phillipson hit back at Sir Jim’s comments, branding him a ‘tax exile’
|
GB NEWS
“People like Jim Radcliffe are saying that this is why this country is going to the dogs.
“You can sympathise with that. Working people can see it very, very clearly- the working people that Labour’s meant to represent,” Camilla said.
“I’m not sure I want to be hearing too much from someone who’s a tax exile as to what they think is the direction of our country,” the Labour minister hit back.
“He’s a successful man who once paid a huge amount of tax into our economy,” the GB News host shot back.
The Labour chair insisted Labour had ‘stabilised’ the British economy
|
GB NEWS
“Other people who are very high-rate taxpayers are leaving in droves under this Labour government.”
Responding, the equalities minister insisted that Labour had “stabilised” the British economy, declaring: “We’ve got the highest growth in the last six months of any economy in the G7. That’s a good foundation to build on in the budget.”
“I do get the point about working people. People who work hard expect to see rewards for that contribution.
“It’s why they will have seen in recent months Andy Burnham has placed a real focus on giving people more breathing space around VAT, on electricity bills, around bus fares, around business rates, cuts for hospitality, which is an incredibly important part of our economy,” Ms Phillipson said.
Labour’s Bridget Phillipson Slams Manchester United Owner Jim Ratcliffe’s Fresh Immigration and Benefits Warning: ‘Don’t Want to Hear From Him!’
A fresh political row has erupted between the Labour Government and Manchester United co-owner Sir Jim Ratcliffe after the billionaire businessman renewed his criticism of Britain’s immigration system, welfare spending, taxation and economic direction.
Ratcliffe, the founder of chemicals giant Ineos and one of Britain’s wealthiest businessmen, said he had lost confidence in the United Kingdom and warned that the country was “on the slide”. He argued that politicians needed to take tougher decisions on several issues, particularly immigration and benefits.
His comments were quickly challenged by Labour minister Bridget Phillipson, who questioned whether Ratcliffe was in a position to lecture the country on its economic and political direction while living in Monaco as a tax resident.
Speaking in response to his remarks, Phillipson said it was difficult to take advice from someone who had chosen to become a “tax exile”. She also referred to Ratcliffe’s previous support for Brexit and argued that the Government was seeking a closer trading relationship with the European Union as part of its strategy for economic growth.
The exchange has reopened a much wider debate over immigration, welfare, taxation and the responsibilities of wealthy individuals who remain highly influential in British public life.
Ratcliffe made his latest comments during an interview in which he described his concerns about Britain’s direction. He said the country had once been “a fantastic place” but argued that it was now struggling to deal with major economic and social problems.
Among the issues he highlighted were immigration and the benefits system.
“Nobody’s tough enough to deal with the immigration problem. Nobody’s tough enough to deal with the benefits problem,” Ratcliffe said, adding that somebody needed to take action.
He also criticised the UK’s approach to taxation and wealth creation, contrasting Britain with the United States. Ratcliffe argued that America was more willing to celebrate people who created wealth and suggested that high taxation could encourage wealthy individuals to leave the country.
His comments come at a politically sensitive time.
The Labour Government is preparing for another major Budget, while ministers face questions over welfare spending, taxation and the economic outlook. At the same time, immigration remains one of the most closely watched political issues in Britain.
Phillipson’s response focused heavily on Ratcliffe’s personal decision to live in Monaco.
The Ineos founder has been resident in Monaco since 2020, having moved his tax residence away from Britain. Phillipson argued that this decision weakened his position when criticising the country’s economic policies.
“I do think you lose the moral high ground in the argument you make,” she said, referring to Ratcliffe’s choice to become a tax exile.
She did not dispute Ratcliffe’s legal right to live abroad. Instead, her argument concerned the credibility and context of his public criticism of Britain.
The dispute has also brought Brexit back into the conversation.
Ratcliffe was a prominent supporter of Brexit and campaigned for Britain to leave the European Union. Phillipson argued that Britain had experienced economic consequences from Brexit and said the Labour Government was committed to developing a better trading relationship with the EU.
Her comments reflect Labour’s broader economic argument that improved relations with European trading partners could contribute to stronger growth.
Ratcliffe, however, has taken a different view of Britain’s economic difficulties.
He has repeatedly criticised the UK’s tax environment and argued that Britain risks losing wealthy entrepreneurs and investors. In his latest comments, he said he did not currently see conditions that would encourage him to return to Britain.
The billionaire also called for a substantial reduction in the benefits bill.
Ratcliffe suggested that money saved from welfare spending could instead be invested in technologies such as artificial intelligence and robotics. His argument is that Britain needs to increase productivity and use investment in technology to strengthen economic growth.
The welfare issue is particularly contentious because the scale of benefits expenditure has increased significantly in recent years.
However, the debate requires some distinction between different categories of benefit recipients.
Earlier this year, BBC Verify examined one of Ratcliffe’s previous claims that Britain had “nine million people on benefits”. Official Department for Work and Pensions figures showed that around 10 million working-age people in Great Britain were receiving some form of benefit in February 2025, but many of those people were working and receiving benefits to supplement their income.
The number of working-age people receiving benefits because they were out of work was considerably lower, at approximately 6.5 million.
This distinction matters because the term “people on benefits” can cover very different circumstances.
Universal Credit, for example, can be paid to people who are employed but whose income is sufficiently low to qualify for support. Other benefits are linked to disability, caring responsibilities, housing costs or other circumstances.
Consequently, the overall benefits bill cannot automatically be treated as money paid to people who are unemployed and not contributing to the economy.
Immigration is similarly complicated.
Ratcliffe has argued that high immigration places excessive pressure on Britain’s finances. But the economic impact of migration depends on factors including employment, earnings, age, tax contributions and use of public services.
BBC Verify previously noted that the fiscal impact of migration is not uniform. Some migrants can make a positive contribution to public finances, particularly when they are working and paying taxes, while the balance can change depending on age, earnings and access to services and benefits.
The latest argument between Ratcliffe and Phillipson therefore reflects two different approaches to Britain’s economic challenges.
Ratcliffe is calling for tougher decisions on welfare, immigration and taxation and believes the country needs a stronger emphasis on wealth creation, investment and productivity.
Phillipson, meanwhile, has defended the Government’s economic direction and argued that Britain remains capable of achieving stronger growth.
During her interview, she pointed to recent economic performance, saying that the UK had recorded the strongest growth among G7 economies over the previous six months. She described this as a foundation on which the Government could build through its upcoming Budget.
She also acknowledged the concerns of working people.
Phillipson said that people who work hard expect to see the benefits of their contribution. She highlighted Government measures involving areas such as VAT, electricity bills, bus fares and business rates as part of its efforts to provide greater financial breathing space.
The disagreement is therefore not simply about whether Britain faces economic challenges. Both sides acknowledge that the country faces difficult questions over productivity, public spending, taxation and living costs.
The disagreement concerns how those problems should be addressed.
Ratcliffe believes that more radical cost-cutting and investment in technology are necessary. The Labour Government argues that economic stability, public investment and closer trading relations with Europe can provide the basis for longer-term growth.
There is also a broader political question about the role of wealthy business figures in national debates.
Ratcliffe is not the only prominent billionaire to have criticised Britain’s tax policies. Recent reports have highlighted concerns from other wealthy individuals about taxation and the business environment.
At the same time, ministers have argued that wealthy people and successful businesses benefit from Britain’s infrastructure, workforce, legal system and public services.
The dispute has therefore become part of a wider discussion about how Britain should balance taxation with competitiveness.
For Ratcliffe, the issue is personal as well as economic. His decision to live in Monaco means that questions about taxation naturally accompany his public statements about Britain.
For Phillipson, that decision provides a reason to challenge the authority of his criticism.
Neither side’s position resolves the underlying policy questions.
Britain still has to decide how much it should spend on welfare, how the immigration system should operate, how much wealthy individuals and businesses should contribute in taxation, and how best to encourage investment and productivity.
Those questions will remain central to political debate as the Government approaches its next Budget.
The exchange between Phillipson and Ratcliffe has nevertheless demonstrated how sharply divided opinion remains.
Ratcliffe says Britain needs politicians who are prepared to make difficult and unpopular decisions. Phillipson argues that the Government is already taking steps to stabilise the economy and improve growth.
The disagreement also demonstrates why statistics and definitions matter in debates about immigration and welfare. Claims about the number of people receiving benefits or the financial impact of migration can produce very different impressions depending on exactly what is being measured.
For voters and taxpayers, the important questions extend beyond the personalities involved.
How much should the welfare state cost? What conditions should apply to benefits? How should Britain manage immigration? What level of taxation is appropriate for high earners and businesses? And what policies can generate sustainable economic growth?
Those are ultimately questions for Parliament, policymakers and the public.
For now, the clash between Bridget Phillipson and Jim Ratcliffe has placed these issues back at the centre of Britain’s political conversation.
Ratcliffe continues to argue that Britain needs tougher action on immigration, welfare and taxation. Phillipson has rejected his intervention and questioned his standing to criticise the country while living abroad for tax purposes.
The disagreement is likely to continue, particularly as the Government approaches a crucial period for economic policy.
What remains clear is that immigration, welfare spending, taxation and economic growth are deeply interconnected issues in Britain’s current political debate—and the argument over how they should be addressed is far from settled.