Labour stands at a crossroads. As Andy Burnham becomes settled as Prime Minister, now is the time for the Labour Party to reassess what it stands for. After resounding losses in the 2026 local elections [1], and with both the Greens and Reform remaining popular, it is clear that Starmer’s vision of rigid, centrist consensus has proven insufficient. Yet Andy Burnham’s succession has resulted in a polling spike, the so-called Burnham bounce [2], so perhaps all hope is not lost for the Labour Party. Burnham’s promise of greater decentralisation and public control [3] is promising. Yet this leaves me wondering, as someone who has become so disenfranchised, what else the party could do to draw back those who have moved elsewhere.
Let’s begin with the question: why does devolution matter? That the people most affected by a particular decision should have input in that conversation is a common intuition on the left. The United Kingdom, with regards to centralisation, is anomalous, with a report by the Effective Governance Forum [4] finding us to be the most centralised democracy in comparison with 10 similar countries. Yet, there is evidence that devolution is economically beneficial. Manchester is a particularly striking British example, where Burnham’s own devolution agenda has given the city significant regional power and established Manchester as the fastest-growing area in the UK [5]. But devolution alone is not enough to fight continuing disenfranchisement.
Instead, there is a strand of thought within the Labour movement that offers a more radical solution: libertarian socialism. This goes beyond devolving political power to regions outside of Westminster. Rather, it suggests that economic control must itself be decentralised. This tradition is not new to the Labour movement. The history of British socialism is shaped by long-standing tension between centralised authority and attempts to give workers more direct control. One such example lies in Guild Socialism [6], a tradition based on worker control that was “strongly hostile to the older schools of collectivism or ‘State’ Socialism” where nationalised industries would be “direct administration” by the political state.” Within the Labour movement itself, syndicalism was prominent at the beginning of the 20th century. For example, syndicalism in the Durham coalfield [7] overlapped with the Labour Movement, particularly through the Independent Labour Party and associated campaigns for greater democratic control within trade unions. This history suggests therefore that the Labour project and libertarian socialist aims are not irreconcilably opposed.
What about the modern day? At the beginning of the decade, the Black Rose caucus was established as a “social and organising space for the Labour Party’s libertarian socialists”.[8] Their intent was to transform the relationship between political institutions, communities, and the economy. The caucus represented a continuation of the previous century’s libertarian socialist advocacy for greater direct control. Arising alongside the expansion of Labour into the wider left under the Corbyn era, the caucus recognised Labour’s potential as a vehicle for social change with strong trade union links. Yet, the organisation was weak within the wider institution. They declined to stand candidates in internal elections, instead seeking to influence the party through shaping its policy. Only a few years after its foundation, the caucus was already being described as “short lived”[9]. By the general election in 2024, it was all but obsolete.
Does this therefore mean that libertarian socialism has no place in Labour today? The end of the Black Rose caucus may initially suggest so. Yet, its fleeting existence demonstrates the challenge of sustaining such a project within a party formed around electoral majorities and concentrated, often centralised, parliamentary power. Its decline therefore does not inherently suggest that its philosophy no longer holds relevance. Rather, it reflects the structural tension between the Black Rose’s principles and the institution of the Labour Party through which it operated. Its failure to establish itself in the long-term suggests perhaps that the barriers facing libertarian socialism within the Labour Party are more organisational than ideological.
So, organisational obstacles aside, what could libertarian socialism provide for Labour? This brings us back to Andy Burnham. Burnham’s outlined political project already contains some of the ingredients to construct a more libertarian, more socialist society. His aforementioned support for devolution is one, his work in Manchester on public transport ownership is another. But these policies need not be seen as ends themselves. Combined, they point to a broader principle: that power should be moved away from distant institutions and towards the individuals directly affected by its decisions. This is the hallmark of the Labour movement. Workers’ rights require that workers themselves get input into conditions and pay, and thus trade unions are valued. Why, then, should the same principle not be extended to other areas of social and economic life?
For a Labour Party under Andy Burnham, in search of a change of direction, libertarian socialism provides a coherent principle based neither on the technocratic centrism of New Labour nor the state-focused socialism of the 20th century. It suggests a socialism defined by how widely power is distributed through society. Where dissatisfaction turns people away from the historical mainstream [10], the promise of a more direct say in decisions may be the recipe to reinvigorate and sustain the Labour tradition. From devolution to democracy, from private ownership to shared social control, and from mere representation to genuine participation, libertarian socialism offers the answer to Labour’s recent woes: a reason to believe that politics can truly be put in ordinary people’s hands.
Please note: the views expressed in this article do not reflect those of the wider Labour club.
Image Credit: T.Kiya from Japan, CC BY-SA 2.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0, via Wikimedia Commons
References