The conclusion to Nick Clegg’s essay on devolution offers a succinct sumnmary of his views on the various, successful ways government services and accountability have been devolved in Europe and North America, and how those lessons might be applied in the UK, particularly in England.

Political devolution is not a panacea for all our political ills. As experience in other countries shows, devolved local Government can lead to difficult tensions between different localities, notably between urban centres and rural hinterlands or richer and poorer local authorities. Any system which includes significant fiscal devolution will also have to grapple with the politically tricky issue of reallocating resources to ensure that the poorest localities are not left to fend for themselves. Given that growing voter apathy seems to be a trend in elections at all levels in most developed democracies, political devolution should also not be regarded as a magic wand to increase voter participation.

But there is something unique about the malaise in British democracy that is directly related to the extraordinary level of Government centralization, especially in England. Central Government now assumes a level of almost complete control of local services which is without precedent elsewhere in Europe or North America. Whitehall possesses a dizzying array of legislative and financial instruments which guarantee that every aspect of our public life is regulated, tested and monitored in minute detail. The political effect is devastating, as the electorate has grown weary of a system in which local politicians are unable to respond to their concerns, and national politicians are indifferent to their local preferences. Powerlessness now pervades England’s warped body politic.

In this context, the need to reinvigorate local political autonomy in England has become an urgent necessity, rather than merely a desirable reform. The most recent model of tentative devolution – regional Government – has been left in tatters by a lack of Government conviction and a resounding defeat in last year’s regional referendum in the North East.

In order to restore momentum to the stalled process of devolution, it is crucial that new models of devolved governance be identified. The emerging pattern of city-regions in many other European countries seems to offer a promising way forward, applied in a flexible manner to suit different political circumstances in different parts of England. Some existing administrative units, notably the sub regional Police Authorities, offer the outlines of politically viable city regions which could, over time, develop the capacity to act in areas as diverse as planning and health, education and fire control. Such an approach, however, will be stillborn unless it includes real fiscal devolution, with specific tax raising powers, set within agreed limits, conferred upon city region authorities.

But local politics cannot come alive without effective local leadership. The halting experiment in Mayoral politics in England does not seem, at first glance, to hold much promise in reinvigorating local politics. Legitimate criticisms of Mayoral systems, based as they are on the individual personification of local political power, are also strongly held. But experience elsewhere in Europe and North America, plus promising signs in the early Mayoral experiences in England, suggest that Mayors, if they enjoy clear powers exercised in an accountable manner, can do much to reignite voter interest in local politics. The reservations about the balance of power in local Councils dominated by Mayors should be set against the very real benefits of a system which can enhance, rather than diminish, political accountability to the people who really matter, the voters.

A combination of European-style city regions and Mayoral politics seems to offer a promising recipe for the future devolution agenda in England.