As I've mentioned before, it's likely to be unfamiliar to most opponents and therefore will provide a practical edge to someone who knows it better, although admittedly it's unlikely to score quick wins (with some exceptions). It has consistent strategic themes in its various branches and is not sharp, so you don't have to worry about losing to a newly discovered tactic in opening theory. These are good reasons to play it.
But it's not the best reason.
I recently got a copy of Starting Out: The English, which I'll eventually get around to going through completely (and did so: go here for a summary of the different lines and ideas in the English); right now I'm partway through Art of Attack in Chess and need to work on other aspects of my game besides openings. But I'm already enthusiastic about the book. It lists my own favorite English Opening work, How to Play the English Opening by Nigel Povah, in the bibliography. In its first pages it also makes the audacious claim that if you have to play for a win, you should choose the English.
That's right. Not 1. e4, so sorry. Not 1. d4, move along. The English.
When Kasparov was down 12-11 in the 1987 World Championship, with only one game remaining, what did he pull out against Karpov? That's right, the must-win 1. c4. I mean, how much more must-win can you get than having to win against Karpov or lose the world championship?
(If you can't see at first why Karpov resigned, White will inevitably win Black's g-pawn after some bishop maneuvers, then it's all over.)
(Also, compare this with Annotated Game #2, which has some similar opening characteristics, although sadly it didn't turn out as well for White.)
The English happens to fit both my aesthetic and practical criteria for an opening selection, so I'm happy playing it. I hope you're just as happy with your own opening selections. If not, why not take a look at 1. c4?