Why Can Musk’s Commentary Trigger More Political Attention Than Grassroots Activists in the UK?

This article was originally published on Mar 3, 2025.

‍

At the beginning of January, Elon Musk’s critical comments on the UK government’s handling of the Rotherham case drove media, political attention and rage to the UK.

‍

Over a 16-year period, approximately 1,400 of “Rotheram’s most vulnerable girls” were being sexually exploited, assaulted and trafficked, according to findings in the Jay Report 2014. Most disturbingly, authorities responsible for preventing Child Sexual Exploitation (CSE) failed to believe the testimonies of girls in the foster system, dismissing claims of abuse as ‘exaggeration’, which allowed these crimes to go undetected for so long.  In the 1990s, the Rotherham case and the consequent failures in safeguarding from local authority were exposed in the mainstream media. It inspired social movements to spread awareness, provided convictions (but not enough), and triggered official investigations such as the Jay Report 2014.

‍

Whilst efforts were made to address the failings of local and national government, activists and the local community expressed that they didn’t go far enough. For example, Professor Jay (the individual responsible for the government investigation) noted her frustration that none of the 20 recommendations pointed out from the inquiry had been implemented.

‍

Then, on the 1st of January 2025 Musk tweeted on X that “So many people at all levels of power in the UK need to be in prison for this” and that “Starmer was complicit in the rape of Britain… for 6 years” on the 3rd of January 2025.

‍

Musk’s comments triggered discussions in Prime Minister’s Questions, Starmer addressing the comments in a public speech, news headlines and public discourse. This is concerning as it demonstrates how the Rotherham case reached the priority of the political agenda for a period, not through grassroots efforts but due to commentary from Musk.

‍

My central question is why was the recent resurgence in discussions and publicity on the Rotherham case at the hands of a tech billionaire and not the UK grassroots activists who have been fighting for decades for a change in the system? Why did Musk’s voice appear louder and more influential than the UK citizens who initially fought for the victims in the Rotherham case? This brings us face-to-face with the issue of money equating to political influence.

‍

Musk’s status and wealth should not equate to influence. The opinions of advocates and activists should have more value and reach. The fact that Musk’s comments led to so much instant re-engagement with the Rotherham case shows the conflation between money/power and political influence. It highlights how much power social platforms such as X give to celebrity figures due to large followings. As a result of his status and dramatics Musk’s comments reached the attention of the UK government faster than UK advocates.

‍

An important thing to note was how opposition party leaders, particularly Farage (Reform UK) used Musk’s comments to attack the Labour government.  This demonstrates how UK political figures could leverage external criticism for their own agendas. This could ring especially true for the far-right party, Reform UK, because alongside Musk’s comments on the failures of the Rotherham case, he said “Vote Reform. It’s the only hope.” This undermines the ethical basis that  Reform’s new-found focus on the Rotherham case is purely based on justice; instead, it suggests it is an attempt to gain political and economic favour from Musk, which could result in millions of funding to their party for example. This could highlight a new trend that opposition parties buy in and utilise Musk’s or other US’s officials’ critiques to try to better their political standing and gain media attention. This acceptance and weaponisation of foreign critiques on domestic issues is relatively unprecedented. The ‘special’ relationship between the UK and the US, combined with America’s massive platform and Musk’s significant publicity and influence, contributes to the pervasive ripple effect of his commentary.

‍

With 24/7 media coverage, social media platforms and dramatics driving headlines, we may see an increasing trend of these figures influencing UK politics, especially if opposition parties utilise external criticisms to further their own agendas.