And the first theme which fascinates me is an unfashionable one - namely the territoriality of political systems, indeed of all practical politics. I remain convinced that territoriality - the sense of "owning" and "belonging to" different units of territory - remains a key feature of the human psyche, of mankind as a species.  Everything that I observe about my fellow man confirms this perception - the behaviour of children, the limpet-like adherence of mankind to a place of birth even if uncongenial, the territoriality of teenage gangs, the primacy of the "home" in all cultures, the passion with which boundary disputes are pursued, the fierce sense of tribal entitlement to the territory surrounding the home, the growth of the territorially-delimited nation-state in the 19th century, resistance to "in-comers" from outside that territory, a fierce commitment to the defence of that territory against physical incursion. This evidence is all important.

This persuades me that at every level - neighbourhood, region, sovereign state - we must as politicians take these matters with a deadly seriousness. Territorialism lies at the heart of the world's most intractable problems - Israel/Palestine, Northern Ireland, Kashmir, Chechnya, the campaign for Kurdistan.  In dealing with migration management - one of the biggest issues of the 21st century - it is vital that we reads the signs of territorialism aright.

This is the analysis which convinces me, contrary to the perceptions of  my own Labour Party, that "local councils" (for towns, villages, neighbourhoods) are of critical importance importance in sculpting the right constitution - for every society. That is why I am a Community Councillor for my own 17,000 population "town" of Mumbles. The new Fabian pamphlet Communities in Control dismisses "territorial communities" as a thing of the past, preferring to promote communities of affinity, communities of allegiance.  That is a wrong perception: other connectivities are indeed strengthening in modern society - but territoriality retains much of its primal power, and political authority. 

The EU debate is all about territoriality, and the retention of UK territory for the UK tribe, and "its" foibles.  Further, it is no accident that, in the process of "state-building" in Iraq, the Americans are having to start by getting town councils elected.  The "town" for most people is the primary unit of territorial governance.  Much of the disenchantment with politics in the UK lies with our abandonment of these primary constitutional entities.  Neither Tory nor Labour politicians - nor yet the LibDems - have shown the slightest interest in strengthening neighbourhood democracy.  Last week's anti-asylum clashes in North Wales were attributable to residents' perceptions - in the town of Wrexham, nowhere else. The town, for most of the people most of the time, constitutes the primary perceptual framework of their lives.

• We politicians ignore at our peril
  these powerful territorial factors.

742-2   30 June 2003  

But it is more than that.  It is a strength of most EU Continental political and social systems that they give pride of place to their cities.  The key to every civilisation lies in the quality of its urban life.  In one sense, it is arguable that the UK has done the same thing, by assigning primacy to its primary city London, for so much of UK dynamism is London-led. 

But for a country of 60m people, however small territorially, the structure of a single city is to restrictive, too stifling, too limiting in personal terms.  In the UK, we must find ways of liberating Bristol and Plymouth, Cardiff and Bristol, Birmingham and Nottingham, Manchester and Liverpool, Newcastle and Teesside, Leeds and Bradford - yes, and Edinburgh and Glasgow. Each of our great cities is capable of generating a high quality of city life, each building on its own strengths. If we cultivate our city communities, encouraging those for whom good city governance constitutes the highest political challenge, our society will be the more prosperous, the more diverse, and the more secure.

In my magnum opus Building a New Britain, I explore the constitutional structures that would be needed, to give our cities their head.  We must grow a new generation of city leaders, who are challenged and satisfied by the task of building-up their own cities, without jumping ship and joining the Westminster village.  Labour sadly shows no sign of understanding this dimension of current politics - not even John Prescott, with his devolutionary ambitions. The pitiful 2003 Labour plans for English devolution show that my Party has not yet begun to understand the real intellectual and political challenges of devolution.  Labour's proposals have none of the conceptual robustness of the Wales devolution legislation, nor the chutzpah of the Scottish legislation (unwise as that was, in my view..).   The English proposals are timid and unprincipled, wholly failing to acknowledge the importance of our great provincial cities.  New Labour, by following the crowd and remaining timid, has failed to grasp the nettle of reform.

• But - wearing my hat as Director of the City Region Campaign - I will soldier on.  The "city cause" is a great one, whose global time is still to come.  I would welcome support from those of you who understand what I am talking about...