It's a new dawn, a new day, a new life, and I'm feeling shit.

 So May has clearly gone way beyond Miliband-lite in terms of economics and fiscal policy, way left of Blair and Miliband.

Have Corbyn and Ronald McDonnell succeeded in shifting the economic agenda towards interventionism in the same way that UKIP and the right of the Conservative Party have succeeded in shifting the social agenda towards protectionism?

Not really. I think that interventionism and protectionism (of which nationalism is merely an extreme example at the individual level) go hand in hand. The world is shifting away from the orthodox economic line of Reagan and Thatcher that "the markets know best" because, quite clearly, the markets have been shown to be wanting.

Since labour is a form of capital, free markets love free movement of labour. It reduces one capital expense. They hate interventionism because it stops the inevitable upward flow of wealth in an uncontrolled economy (as evidenced by the change in relative incomes between "ordinary" employees and the top 5% of earners since 1975).

The "let the markets do their job" advocates are really a busted flush because they assumed that making "ordinary" people better off in absolute terms (because of advances in technology) would make them happier. If they had looked at their own lives they would have realized that it wasn't the money that mattered so much as having more money than your rival.

We are entering an interventionist age (in Britain, marked by May's namecheck of Clement Attlee, support for workers on boards) and with interventionism will come protectionism. With protectionism will come nationalism and with nationalism will come restrictions on movement of labour.

That is how the apparent paradox of May appearing to shift to the left and to the right simultaneously resolves itself. They are both part of the same shift; we just choose to give them different labels.