Over the last year, English city-regions have won growing acceptance. But mixed messages from Ruth Kelly, Ed Balls and John Healey have exposed the debate within Whitehall.

The government is still feeling its way through devolution, thinking out loud. There are some real differences. But we should avoid a polarised face-off between regions and city-regions. City-regions can co-exist with regions.

Despite the mixed messages, an important consensus is building.

First, we all recognise the economic logic of city-regions and want to see closer collaboration between local authorities.

Second, we all want to reduce institutional clutter and devolve powers and funding to the most appropriate level.

And third, we all agree RDAs and other regional quangos are not sufficiently accountable and need greater scrutiny.

The big questions are now around the pace and level of devolution, and city-regional governance.

Radical devolution is not on the cards. We are more likely to see 'evolutionary decentralisation'. But the Treasury still intends to decentralise transport, skills and housing. And the Lyons Inquiry should result in new economic development powers for local authorities.

But what about city-regional governance of things like transport, skills and housing? This is the real sticking point. Elected city-region mayors are not going to appear overnight. But, over time, city-regions may want to go for the mayoral model. Let's be clear — we're not seeking to impose elected mayors, but the option should be made available.

We need regions and city-regions. The Centre for Cities and others would prefer a stronger city-region focus and more radical devolution. But let's keep focused on the main prize — more powers for our towns and cities, so they can grow their own economies.