British politics entered the new year in a state of online siege from the incoming US government’s ironically named “efficiency tzar” and discourse provocateur (aka “troll”), Elon Musk.
Musk’s claimed cause is the way the British government has dealt with cases of abuse and grooming – cases which have been investigated by the National Crime Agency. Musk has recently discovered a scandal that has been the subject of much debate and investigation in the UK already.
He now posts on X (formerly known as Twitter) several times a night, sharing his thoughts on the matter, and appears determined to associate prime minister Keir Starmer and the wider Labour party with the horrific scandals, suggesting they are complicit with the rape gangs by failing to act while he was director of public prosecutions.
Needless to say, the legal system is more complex than Musk implies, and the political action is limited by what is legally possibly. But that does not prevent Musk from politicising the scandal to attack Starmer.
Musk also intervened by commending the convicted far-right criminal, Tommy Robinson (real name, Stephen Yaxley-Lennon) and suggesting that Robinson should be freed from prison, despite his conviction for contempt of court.
It’s worth remembering that both Musk and Reform leader Nigel Farage have an association that predates the recent interventions. As recently as a few weeks ago they met at Donald Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home where they reportedly discussed Musk contributing funding to Reform UK.
The current status of such discussions has become unclear after the recent exchanges on X, which may suggest the relationship is not as stable as it appeared.
Farage is an astute political operator with considerable experience of engaging with voters. He recognises that association with Robinson would be terminal for any political party, especially one as young as Reform UK. Yet Musk’s advocacy for the former British National Party, British Freedom Party and English Defence League member pushed Farage into separating himself and Reform UK from Musk’s posts in support of Robinson.
This in turn led to Musk calling for Farage to be replaced as Reform UK leader. Musk’s split from Farage was confirmed shortly afterwards when he appeared to switch support to Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch and her moderate calls for a national inquiry into grooming gangs.
This suggests that Musk is not a friend of considered or careful policy making. Nor can he be described as loyal to those he associates with. Indeed, the swiftness by which he dropped Farage, embraced Badenoch, whilst earlier suggesting he was a friend of the UK suggests “he is not a friend worth having”, as author Nick Cohen recently noted.
The issue Musk highlights is a very important one. The abuse of young women and children is too important to be a billionaire’s plaything. The events of the past few weeks show that the price of an alliance with Musk is betrayal when a random moment or thought crosses his mind. Farage has already seen this.
Such caprice is a dangerous habit for anyone close to power to have and something that should be a concern for incoming US president Donald Trump. British politicians, meanwhile, must be realistic about what it means for their own country.
Politicians of all parties need to immediately distance themselves from Musk. He is not a friend of democratic or legal process. Importantly, I would suggest any donation to the coffers of any party should be treated as a business transaction for which Musk, as a businessman, would expect a return.
What that return may be is unclear, but any business transaction would surely involve a payment for a service or product, which could take the form of favourable business treatments, or a wider political agenda. This would be a very high price to pay, so any donation – no matter how attractive – should be rejected.
The principle of foreign interference on the scale witnessed over recent weeks reveals a serious problem that needs to be addressed. Musk has indeed crossed lines with the scale of his comments about Starmer, Gordon Brown and Nigel Farage, among others.
Some form of response from the UK should now be inevitable, but delivered through legal and democratic processes. We need to get away from diplomacy on social media and instead to return to carefully considered exchanges that only become public after agreement is reached.
Those doubting the need for this should consider the consequences of allowing a member of a foreign government to effectively call for the end of democratic choice in the UK to go unaddressed. It is not just a case of crossing a political line, it’s outright undemocratic interference that risks the safety of our democratically elected politicians on all sides. That surely demands a meaningful and united response.
Andrew S. Roe-Crines does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
