Earlier this month, it was revealed that Rupert Lowe, leader of Restore Britain, is on track to earn almost as much from Elon Musk’s X (formerly Twitter) as he does from his salary as an MP. According to his own declarations in the register of MPs’ financial interests, he has earned £932 an hour for his posts on X since the start of the year.
If his average earnings for 2026 so far continue throughout the year, he would earn just over £93,000: close to the current MPs’ £98,599 annual salary. He could even exceed that figure if the higher rate of earnings in recent months persists.
Technically, Lowe has not done anything wrong. Most politicians today use social media to reach voters and communicate their policies. He has rightly declared this money, which reinforces the transparency and strength of our democratic system. Ultimately, parliamentary procedures prohibit MPs from concealing external sources of income.
However, the money he makes from the content he posts could incentivise him to continue being provocative and divisive. Lowe has built significant engagement by posting extreme, inflammatory political content, particularly on immigration. Immigration dominates the political agenda in Britain, and Elon Musk’s X is keeping it mainstream.
Since Musk’s takeover of Twitter/X, extreme-right content has risen dramatically. Much of it is personally promoted by Musk himself. Users can now make money through Twitter/X’s ‘creator revenue’ programme- a monetisation scheme for those with a ‘premium’ subscription. Premium users are paid according to how their posts and content perform. The more extreme your views, the more likely it is to generate likes, and the more likes, the more money. Politics no longer benefits electorally from outrage, but also financially.
Lowe’s recent posts on X highlight the extraordinary amount of engagement the Restore leader secures on the platform. In late August, one of his posts stated: “An illegal migrant could read ten thousand Home Office pamphlets in some woeful attempt to ‘integrate’; I’d still want him deported. They broke into our country – they are not welcome here, and they all need to be removed.” This post received over 200,000 views, 29,000 likes and 3,600 reposts.
Lowe has consistently driven these high levels of engagement, with his reach often enhanced by Musk himself, who has more than 240 million followers. Musk has helped him algorithmically produce this content and spread it. In June last year, Musk appeared to signal support for Lowe’s new political party, Restore Britain, by replying to Lowe’s launch post with a series of Union Jack emojis. He had previously supported Reform UK, but he reversed his support for Nigel Farage after a disagreement over calls to release Tommy Robinson, a notorious far-right activist.
Historically, we have been concerned about foreign money and donations flowing into our politics. This is because political incentives might arise from this money, and when this happens, politics is no longer about the people. Most recently, Nigel Farage was heavily scrutinised for a £5m donation he received before becoming an MP. Even though Lowe has not been paid directly by Elon Musk in the traditional sense, we should still be asking the same questions.
Ultimately, the money Lowe earns from Musk’s platform could be affecting his behaviour because he benefits financially. It could be encouraging him to post even more provocative political content. Creating division and stoking fear online should not be incentivised monetarily because it can have significant consequences. Profit-driven algorithms prioritise outrage to maximise user engagement, which severely damages the fabric of society and further polarises public debate and discourse.
Elon Musk stated he bought Twitter for $44 billion to protect and promote free speech. Four years after he acquired the platform, it is hard to believe that this claim is true. Content that aligns with Musk’s views tends to do very well. Musk amplifies politicians he likes, and his platform pays those politicians according to what they generate. Critics argue that this is because he wants to control politics.
His control over British politics is clear. Arguably, X played a significant role in damaging the public perception of Keir Starmer during his tenure. A multitude of domestic policy choices drove his low popularity. It was also driven by targeted framing on platforms like X, where public perception of Starmer was heavily damaged by direct interventions from Elon Musk. Musk used his personal account to repeatedly goad and attack the former Prime Minister
Following the UK riots in the summer of 2024, Musk amplified the highly damaging nickname “Two-Tier Keir”. The label suggested that Starmer’s government practised a “two-tier” system of policing that treated right-wing demonstrations more harshly than left-wing or minority protests. Musk routinely interacted with right-wing critics and shared posts framing Starmer’s policies as authoritarian or hypocritical, using his immense reach to project these narratives globally.
Musk also played a significant role in the national debate around the UK’s historical grooming gang scandals. He used X to attack Starmer, claiming he was “complicit” in failures to prosecute child sexual exploitation rings during his time as Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) from 2008 to 2013. Musk stated publicly that Starmer “should be in prison” for his handling of the crisis. Starmer strongly rejected these claims.
While this row did not sink Starmer’s popularity, the surrounding issues did highlight existing vulnerabilities. Starmer’s initial refusal to launch a national inquiry, before his eventual U-turn, was unpopular. It allowed political opponents to keep his past legal record under heavy scrutiny. Through his platform, therefore, Musk was able to influence British politics.
Rupert Lowe earning substantial amounts of money from this platform is very problematic because it could ultimately increase his influence. A US-based billionaire simultaneously paying and boosting an ideologically aligned British politician through his own platform is not a good look for British politics, even if it is technically allowed.