Oxford MP and former cabinet minister, Andrew Smith, says the two-tier system is not only inefficient and confusing to the public, but also undemocratic and should evolve into single tier.
Ask most people in Oxford which council runs what, and they will tell you the city council runs things in the city, and the county council runs things out in the county. 
Despite the best efforts of individual councillors, councils and the LGA, popular engagement with local authorities is difficult to stimulate.
The public can be rallied around a controversial planning application or an unwanted phone mast. People will voice opinions on pavement repairs or waste-collection arrangements. But any real sense of connection between voting in local elections and the destiny of an area is, for the most part, conspicuously lacking.
The convoluted structure of local government is part of the problem. If people are unclear about who is responsible for what, they won't be inclined to play an active role in holding representatives and policies to account.
Instead, councillors, MPs, government and public agencies get lumped together as a great big ‘them', conspiring to bang up council tax and waste the proceeds, while grabbing headlines blaming one another for any shortcomings in local services. To break through all this, a real sense of local government is required from a council which actually registers with the people of the area it covers. So, Ruth Kelly is to be commended for opening up an opportunity for more councils to move away from a two-tier situation and go unitary. Among those submitting a bid is Oxford City, most of which is in my constituency.
Oxford has many different priorities from the predominantly-rural area covered by Oxfordshire CC. Yet, key strategic local decisions taken by the Conservative-controlled county are impacting directly on the future of a city, which does not elect a single Conservative councillor.
In fact, there have been times in Oxford – such as a recent furore over a county-imposed parking policy – when this has felt a somewhat colonial arrangement.
Meanwhile, the arguments advanced by the county about its relative CPA rating miss the point, that Oxford's ambition is for a new council, able to develop a radical and responsive agenda. We must have services which are both efficient and meet the needs of our citizens.
For an internationally-known city such as Oxford to fulfil its real potential, it needs a greater say over the bigger picture – how it delivers economic growth and environmental responsibility; how it tackles homelessness and worklessness; how it can help local schools make the most of their pupils' potential.
None of this, nor the need to deliver stronger leadership, long-term administrative savings and quality public services, can be carried out without unitary status.
Oxfordshire has other objectives. It wants to constrain the city's growth, while at the same time, protect the interests of those who want to commute into Oxford or merely enjoy the leisure facilities – complete with free parking at the weekend!
Of course, representatives elsewhere in the county have a job to do in standing up for local interests, and protecting the distinctive character of their communities and landscape. The local nature of Oxford's three unitary solution for the Oxfordshire area reflects this, and at the same time, proposes a shared-services initiative which would create greater efficiency and savings.
Unlike the current two-tier situation, however, those who worry most about inner-city schooling or community safety in high-density urban environments will have the power to get things done.
Ms Kelly is listening to councils wishing to move towards a unitary solution for their areas. She has it in her power to make some of the most important decisions for our area of the past decade.
My hope is that in the near future, when people ask the citizens of Oxford who runs what in their city, there will be a single, clear answer – a council answerable to them.
Andrew Smith is MP for Oxford East