For a party elected on a platform of change, Labour’s approach to governing seems oddly preoccupied with keeping the right-wing press happy rather than delivering for its core supporters. Instead of using its mandate to push forward bold policies, Labour appears more concerned with neutralising attacks from conservative media outlets like The Daily Mail, The Sun, and GB News.

Take the recent cut in foreign aid to pay for increased defence. This was never a demand from Labour’s base. Yet, in a move clearly designed to avoid criticism from right-wing commentators and a meeting with Donald Trump, Labour chose reductions in international aid rather than finding money from a multiple of other sources. Was this a necessary strategy, or a sign that Labour is governing with one eye constantly on its opponents rather than on its own vision?

The Fear of Right-Wing Media

It’s no secret that Labour has always faced hostility from the right-wing press. Even in government, attacks from The Sun, The Mail, and GB News remain relentless. The argument from Labour strategists may well be that governing effectively requires avoiding unnecessary fights, keeping business leaders on side, and proving economic ‘responsibility.’ But if the right-wing media will attack no matter what Labour does, why make policy decisions based on trying to appease them?

Many of Labour’s current moves—cautious spending plans, cutting foreign aid, reluctance to implement wealth taxes, tough rhetoric on immigration—seem tailored more to reassuring conservative critics than energising its own voters. Labour was elected to be an alternative to the Tories, yet on many key issues, its approach appears designed to avoid rocking the boat rather than delivering bold change.

Is Governing About Principles or Opposition?

Of course, governing is about compromise. No party can implement its manifesto without adjusting to political and economic realities. It has to. But at what point does compromise become capitulation? Labour was elected to deliver a new vision, not simply to manage the status quo in a slightly different shade.

The danger is that by bending over backwards to avoid criticism from the right, Labour risks losing millions of the voters who put it in power. If core supporters begin to feel that Labour is governing more like a cautious centre right administration than a party of change, disillusionment will set in. And history has shown that when Labour disappoints its base, voter turnout drops, momentum stalls, and the right seizes the opportunity to return.

Should Labour Be More Idealist?

Labour’s priority should be delivering the policies that won it the election in the first place. There is a way to govern pragmatically while still sticking to core values—on public investment, workers’ rights, and global responsibility. The party doesn’t need to be reckless, but it does need to be bold.

If Labour continues to govern as if it fears the right more than it inspires its own voters, it risks sleepwalking into disaster. The question is simple: does Labour want to define its time in power, or let its opponents dictate the terms of its leadership?