Is the Financial Times left-wing? The truth about its political stance
Financial Times Media Bias Comparison Tool
Discover how the Financial Times ranks against other major UK publications on media bias. Based on data from independent media watchdogs and reader perceptions.
The Guardian
Ad Fontes Media score: -28 (Extreme Left)
Financial Times
Ad Fontes Media score: -3.98 (Slightly Left of Center)
The Daily Telegraph
Ad Fontes Media score: +22 (Center-Right)
Reader Perceptions (2024)
Reddit analysis of FT readers showed:
62% view FT as "centrist" or "center-right"
28% view FT as "slightly left on social issues but right on economics"
10% view FT as left-leaning
The Financial Times isn’t left-wing. But it’s not right-wing either. If you’re trying to slot it into a simple left-right box, you’re already misunderstanding what it is. The FT is a business newspaper first - and that changes everything.
It’s not about parties, it’s about markets
The FT doesn’t support Labour because it’s left-wing. It doesn’t back the Conservatives because they’re right-wing. It supports whoever gets economic policy right. In 1992, it endorsed Labour under Neil Kinnock - not because Kinnock was socialist, but because he promised fiscal discipline and market-friendly reforms. In 2024, it endorsed Labour again under Keir Starmer, not for their climate pledges or social care plans, but because they promised to fix public finances and avoid reckless spending.That same year, it criticized Labour’s plan to impose a windfall tax on energy firms as "counterproductive interventionism." At the same time, it slammed Conservative proposals for unfunded tax cuts as "fiscally irresponsible." The FT doesn’t care which party you belong to. It cares whether your policy makes the economy stronger.
What the data says about bias
Independent media watchdogs agree: the FT is one of the least biased outlets in the UK. Media Bias/Fact Check gives it a score of 0.4 out of 100 for bias - that’s "Least Biased." It rates the FT’s factual reporting as "High" with zero failed fact checks in the last five years. Ad Fontes Media, which uses panels of left, right, and center analysts to score outlets, puts the FT at -3.98 on a scale from -42 (extreme left) to +42 (extreme right). That’s barely nudging left of center.Compare that to The Guardian, which Ad Fontes scores at -28, or The Daily Telegraph at +22. The FT isn’t just more balanced - it’s in a completely different category. It’s not trying to push a political agenda. It’s trying to help investors, CEOs, and policymakers make better decisions.
Why people think it’s left-wing
The confusion comes from what the FT says on social issues. On climate change, immigration, and European integration, it often sounds progressive. It supported remaining in the EU. It backed civil liberties over surveillance. It criticized the UK’s hard Brexit stance. That makes some people assume it’s left-wing.But here’s the catch: the FT supports those positions not because they’re liberal, but because they’re economically rational. Open borders mean more labor mobility. EU membership means easier trade. Climate action means long-term cost savings for businesses. These aren’t moral stances - they’re business calculations.
When the FT says "we need stronger climate regulation," it’s not echoing Greenpeace. It’s quoting the International Energy Agency’s projections on energy costs. When it says "immigration boosts productivity," it’s citing Bank of England data, not activist talking points.
How it compares to other papers
The Wall Street Journal has a clear divide: its news section is relatively neutral, but its editorial page is fiercely conservative. The FT doesn’t have that split. Its news and opinion sections are written by the same team, with the same standards. That’s why it’s harder to pin down.It’s also different from The Economist - which, like the FT, is economically liberal but leans more toward libertarianism. The FT is more pragmatic. It doesn’t believe in deregulation for its own sake. It believes in smart regulation that keeps markets efficient and fair.
And unlike The Guardian or The Daily Telegraph, the FT doesn’t have a loyalist readership. Its subscribers aren’t there because they love Labour or hate the SNP. They’re there because they need to understand interest rates, inflation, and global supply chains. They’re fund managers, lawyers, entrepreneurs - people who need facts, not slogans.
What readers actually think
A 2024 analysis of Reddit discussions from r/UKPersonalFinance and r/PoliticalDiscussion found that 62% of regular FT readers describe it as "centrist" or "center-right." Another 28% say it’s "slightly left on social issues but right on economics." Only 10% call it left-leaning.One user, who’s read the FT for 15 years, put it simply: "Their economic analysis is consistently pro-market. Their social commentary leans progressive - but never at the cost of their business focus." That’s the key. The FT doesn’t sacrifice its core mission for political fashion. It’s not trying to be woke. It’s trying to be useful.
Why this matters
If you’re reading the FT looking for confirmation of your political beliefs, you’ll be frustrated. If you’re reading it to understand how policy affects markets, you’ll find it invaluable.The FT’s strength isn’t its ideology. It’s its consistency. It doesn’t flip-flop because of headlines. It doesn’t chase clicks. It sticks to its framework: free markets, fiscal responsibility, global trade, and evidence-based policy. That’s why it’s trusted by central banks, hedge funds, and Fortune 500 CEOs.
And that’s why it’s not left-wing - not even close. It’s not right-wing either. It’s the Financial Times. And it’s built on a single rule: if it doesn’t make economic sense, it doesn’t get endorsed.
The real story behind the endorsement
In 2010, the FT endorsed the Conservatives - not because they were right-wing, but because Labour’s economic plan looked unsustainable. In 2017, it backed Theresa May over Jeremy Corbyn - not because it liked her Brexit stance, but because it feared Labour’s plan to nationalize utilities and raise corporate taxes would scare off investment.And in 2024, it backed Labour again - not because Starmer promised to expand public services, but because he promised to balance the books and avoid the mistakes of 2019. The FT didn’t change. The parties did.
That’s the pattern. The FT doesn’t follow parties. It follows outcomes.
About Author
