This is a response to this post by Michael Knowles, which in itself was a response to this original piece by Peter Facey.
Peter Facey (London, Unlock Democracy): Michael - thank you for replying to my article. In your reply you accuse me of raising Aunt Sallys - but your reply does exactly that as well. You accuse me of wanting to Balkanise England (I would like to know on what you base this insight into my heart); as someone who has worked in the Balkans I can assure you that's not my intention. If you want to accuse me of anything of a geographical nature then make it wanting to turn our Country into a English version of Switzerland: decentralised and with real influence for citizens.
I said there was a danger of the debate becoming sterile because all to often it descends into name-calling and accusations. I agree with you that this is an important debate and it is because of that that I was trying to see if there was a way forward.
I will accept on face value your assertion that you want to decentralise power to localities and regions and not simply move the centralisation of power from the UK government to a English one. Let me see if I can outline where I think we agree: that any reform needs to recognise that England is a nation and that the English people have the right to decide their own governance. I personally have never argued that a region like London or the North East is the same as Wales or Scotland, because they are part of a wider nation. With the exception of Cornwall none of the local identities in England are national in character, but this does not mean that they are not real or meaningful. Or that to have real powers communities have to be nations. Wyoming or Lower Saxony are not nations but have greater autonomy than Scotland or Wales.
We disagree in two places: one, that any further decentralisation in England has to wait until after an English Parliament is established, and two, over the question of powers. Michael sees a powerful English Parliament which may later grant some greater autonomy to communities and localities (in the same way the Scottish Parliament may do so) as the vital first step, whereas I wish to see greater power being held at a county, city or regional level. Yes, Michael, I have no problem with the London Assembly being given control of the metropolitan police or education in the capital (two things that the Scottish Parliament controls) or for that matter Essex or Lancashire having those same powers if their local citizens want them. I don't see why central government, whether UK or English, should control issues that are local or regional in nature.
Like the Campaign for an English Parliament, Unlock Democracy has a mission, in our case to fight centralisation and bring power closer to citizens - and we believe in it as much as you do in yours. So where does all this leave us?
My experience has shown me that you make progress when people from different positions find a way to unite around a common objective. That is what those of us involved in the campaign for the Sustainable Communities Act managed to do and what we will need to do if we are to challenge the centralised nature of power in our country. Because in the end of the day, our real opponents are those who defend the status quo, and not each other.
