Oxford East MP, Andrew Smith, appears to put up a convincing case for unitary councils and for his city council to become one.
Mr Smith's argument is predicated on six false premises (click here for article).
First, he suggests that creating a single tier of local government will clear the fog around accountability and voter apathy. I am not aware of significant differences in turnout between local council elections in two-tier areas and in unitary council areas.
The real turn-off for voters in local elections is the knowledge that Whitehall has consistently regarded local councils as mere agents of central government. 
Second, Mr Smith believes Oxford is so different from the rest of the county that it must be administratively separated from its hinterland.
Oxfordshire towns such as Banbury and Bicester have growing ethnic minority populations, they have pockets of high deprivation similar to Oxford, and they would be amused to be described as ‘rural' when they are obviously urban and share problems of homelessness and unaffordable house prices with Oxford.
Oxfordshire is a single city region grouped around, but extending well beyond the city boundaries.
Look at the travel to work area, the regional planning central Oxfordshire sub-region, and look at where the hi-tech employers cluster in the county.
Third, he maintains that creating a unitary city on the present city boundaries will ‘ensure it delivers economic growth and environmental responsibility', and help ‘tackle homelessness and worklessness'.
This is nonsense. The green belt on which the city council would like to build is located in South Oxfordshire and would remain there after transition. Winning the unitary bid will not achieve the real goal of the city council – to acquire territory from its neighbours. 
Fourth, Mr Smith says ‘the need to deliver stronger leadership, long-term administrative savings and quality public services [cannot] be carried out without unitary status'.
This is laughable. This new unitary would be based on the current city boundaries. It is being promoted by city councillors. Members of the new unitary would be indistinguishable from the present council. 
Current city council staff would form the core of a new unitary council. I do not believe the city would change its spots quickly enough to transform itself from one of the worst-performing councils in the country with a ‘weak' CPA rating and an Audit Commission judgment of ‘not offering value for money', to a high performer. 
These judgments reflect a council which has been failing its citizens for 20 years or more. Fifth, the finances of three Oxfordshire unitaries do not stack up.
The city tries to show payback within five years. The county council says the city's figures are badly flawed and that payback is impossible under the present scenario. Creation of three unitaries will lead us to higher council taxes and lower levels of services. 
And finally, Mr Smith rails against the unfairness of a ballot box that has produced a city council and a county council of different political complexions.
Some years ago, Oxford City was run by a large Conservative majority. Until recently, the county council was a hung council. Cherwell has all but eliminated Liberals from its membership. 
South Oxfordshire and Vale of White Horse have done the same with Labour. What comes round will come back. Restructuring local government on the basis of temporary political advantage is the way of perdition.
Oxfordshire County Council is ranked as ‘excellent' by the Audit Commission. I am keen to embrace the challenge of making the current two-tier system work better and more efficiently.
We look forward to rolling our sleeves up and making that happen.
Keith Mitchell is leader at Oxford County Council