Sir – Martin Stott (Unitary Oxfordshire is good idea, May 1) points to the real difficulty in any re-orientation of our local structures for government: there is too much vested and party-political interest in maintaining the existing fragmented structures, with each party able to claim its ‘share’ of influence over its own ‘patch’.

In the budget-setting Talking Oxfordshire roadshows of last autumn and especially at the rural special event in Cllr Hudspeth’s backyard in Woodstock, there was much discussion of the potential benefits of a unitary arrangement.

Some put annual savings at between £10m and £20m on merging the five districts and the county council into one Oxfordshire council. Others talked much more extravagantly, about there being upwards of £250m to save but the timescale was unclear. Cllr Hudspeth was pressed to consider whether we, as local residents and taxpayers and service users, might be better served were he to expend his political capital on securing a consensus to deliver a unitary bid; or whether we would prefer to see swingeing cuts in local services.

It seems that any and all remedies to budget pressure must be considered save, perhaps, for that unitary bid. We have, Martin reminds us, heard debate come and go only to founder on the twin hazards of the City: County and Tory: Labour intractabilities.

Perhaps we deserve better. The Universities, the Science Vale, the Motor Valley, the Cotswolds — all these world-class brands are grounded in the county.

The influence of each pervades its host district and makes claim upon and in the name of, the broader county.

A single, efficient entity at this level may make more sense than persisting with the fragmented, or losing Oxfordshire in any greater regional agglomeration. Can our local politicians afford not to deliver such an entity? Peter Martin, Bampton