Combining the causes of local government and devolution is the best way to achieve genuine decentralisation in England.

I made this case recently at a seminar in the House of Commons.

The occasion was the launch of a pamphlet I wrote for two organisations with an interest in constitutional and democratic reform, Federal Trust and Unlock Democracy.

In this publication I argue for an extension of devolution, already operating for more than a decade in Greater London, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, to England outside Greater London.

My proposal – set out in Devolution in England: A New Approach – would utilise the existing structure of local government to provide its basic units.

Local authorities would be able to take responsibility for executive functions presently exercised at the Westminster/Whitehall level.

An English Devolution Enabling Act would set out a list of those powers that were available, from which a local authority could choose as it saw fit.

They could include such areas as agriculture, culture and language, economic development, education, health, and flood defences.

Councils would also be able to determine their own constitutional structures (for instance whether to use a cabinet or committee model and what electoral system to employ).

They would have control of their own boundaries, with the option to collaborate or merge with other local authorities.

By this means, they could – if, and only if they chose – construct regional or even all-English democratic governance.

In taking on, exercising and retaining these responsibilities, they would not be dependent upon the centre.

Local government would become stronger and democratic decision-making would take place closer to those it affected.

This scheme is influenced by the provisions for executive devolution in the Government of Wales Act 1998 (now superseded) and by the arrangements in place in Spain under its 1978 constitution.

It is intended to create a dynamic of innovation and decentralisation that can spread across England, correcting some of the imbalance that has come about following the advent of devolution elsewhere in the UK.

The general response to my presentation in Westminster was positive but not universally so.

Some of the criticisms contradicted others.

For some my proposals were too timid and for others too radical in their potential decentralising impact.

Some held they did not take sufficient account of a need for all-England representation; others that they inappropriately created an opening for supporters of an English Parliament.

One objection to my proposals merits close consideration.

It involves my approach to local government finance.

To understand the argument here it is necessary to stress a key purpose of my scheme: creating momentum.

An initially relatively modest but significant set of powers could, through their exercise, generate demand for more.

At first, perhaps only a few larger authorities would choose to call down powers and then only perhaps one or a few from the selection on offer.

If they made a success of them, others would follow their example, and those authorities in the vanguard of devolution would take on more functions, and lobby for additions to the menu of what was available.

The ongoing development of the system of Autonomous Communities in Spain and of devolution in the UK provides precedents for this pattern.

One of the most important end goals for English devolution would be for an increase in taxation powers exercised and held democratically accountable at local level.

Local authorities would have the powers both to spend and to tax, encouraging responsible decision making by councils and responsible behaviour by voters.

The most controversy among the audience at the House of Commons seminar involved my argument that the scheme did not necessarily need, at first, to include new tax-raising powers within its scope.

Such an omission does not reflect, on my part, a perceived lack of the importance of such powers.

On the contrary, obtaining fiscal autonomy is of such fundamental strategic importance that it is well worth deploying tactical flexibility to attain this goal.

If we follow the logic of devolution, there is reason to believe success is possible by this means.

Initially, tax-raising ability played only a marginal part in devolution in the UK – little more than a slight varying power, never used, and only for Scotland.

But pressure for change appeared and intensified.

Scotland, if it remains within the UK, will take on expanded taxation powers in 2016.

It is likely that Wales, Northern Ireland and Greater London will come next.

Initially excluding fiscal authority from an English devolution scheme would help deal with the political challenge of winning over those less convinced about the value of local autonomy.

Once established, the system could do its work, creating its own agenda for expansion, as devolution has elsewhere in the UK.

Those of a more fundamentalist disposition, demanding instant tax-raising autonomy or nothing, should consider why decades of campaigning on this issue has yielded no success, and even seen movement in the opposite direction.

There is nothing to lose by trying a different, if less direct, route to the same destination.

This debate is not one of strategy, but of tactics.

I consider it to be a discussion between those seeking the same general objective.

Sometimes a time comes when it is necessary for a reform movement to have such internal debates, particularly when its existing methods are not working.

For advocates of reinvigorated local government and of true devolution for England, such a moment is now.

Dr Andrew Blick is lecturer in politics and contemporary history at King’s College London