The big worry for radicals - like myself - who would like to see a serious restructuring of the state is that if and when there is a change of Government, that change will be cosmetic rather than fundamental.
The big bear trap awaiting opposition politicians is the idea that there is nothing wrong with the way Government works, just with the people who are running it - that as long as you have a blue rosette pinned to the Cabinet Ministers rather than a red one, everything will work fine.
This is, of course, a fallacy. As Dan Hannan and Douglas Carswell have laid out so brilliantly in The Plan, it is the ship that is at fault - changing who wears the captain's hat will make little difference.
That is why it was worrying to read in yesterday's Sunday Times that Chris Grayling wants official forms to ask people with regularity whether they are married or not.
He seemse to be concerned that whilst official forms request endless information about sexuality, ethnic origin, religious beliefs, family arrangements and so on, they rarely ask about marriage. His argument seems to follow that therefore state paperwork is failing to promote marriage, and considers it unimportant.
There are certainly many things wrong with official forms - not least the kind of lifestyle and personal data that they demand. I personally refuse to answer most of these questions, and I know a lot of people who take pleasure in providing absurd answers to them. The public are fighting back against nosey officialdom in the same way, hence the recent trend of writing "Jedi" when asked one's religion.
Voters would welcome an end to invasive, irrelevant questioning every time they go to the GP or apply for planning permission.
However, Mr Grayling has got it all wrong. The right response to nosey, politically correct questions on official forms is to cut them out, not add in more that satisfy one's own interests. There is no benefit to having even more invasive paperwork, just because you want to snoop from a traditionalist, rightist perspective rather than a trendy lefty perspective.
Shadow Ministers should look at each policy before they propose it, and ask themselves this question: Underneath the bonnet, is this any different to what the Government are doing?
In this case, the answer is no.
The problem with the current policy of information gathering is not that they are gathering the wrong kind of information but that they are demanding so much information at all. A state that holds databases on traditional right wing things, like marriage, or respect for the police, or free market credentials would be just as bad as a state that holds databases on ethno-religious identity, sexuality or household energy usage.
The last thing people need is for this cloying, bullying, prying, database-building Government to be replaced by one that is eactly the same, but painted a different colour. We need a Government that talks sense, rather than the same old rubbish but in a different accent. Mr Grayling should start burning databases, not commissioning his own.