No simple answer

There were two key reasons and neither of them are surprising.

The first was cost. It was not clear that the proposals would save the council taxpayer money in the long term.

The second was that the Government did not believe that the three new authorities would be able to deliver key strategic services. For that you have to read issues like transport and regional planning.

It is the second time that proposals for three unitaries - one based on Oxford and the others based on a north-south spilt - have been rejected by the Government.

The arguments about cost and strategic services were the same ones that defeated the idea in the early nineties.

Few would argue that unitary authorities are a good thing. One council means no confusion about who is providing services and less chance of duplication and overlap. The real contention is about how it could be made to work in Oxfordshire.

The Achilles heel in all the proposals so far is that they have all been drawn up on the basis of existing boundaries and existing power bases.

Oxford on its own is too small. It serves an area much wider than the one bounded by the ring road, and any sensible unitary authority should recognise that.

Oxfordshire on its own is too big. Could a sensible county unitary serve Banbury in the north and Henley in the south? We think not. It would also mean the loss of an Oxford council and a clear Oxford voice.

You could draw a wide ring around Oxford, bringing in places like Kidlington, Kennington, Botley, Eynsham and even Abingdon.

But then, what do you do with the rest? Could Witney go to a Cotswold authority or does it really look more to Oxford?

There is no simple answer to this. Indeed, it may be politically impossible to carve Oxfordshire up in a way that would make administrative and financial sense. It would take a brave person to propose it and it would have to be someone with no fingers in any of Oxfordshire's political pies.