Is Labour now the most vocal voice of the right? This might seem a strange hypothesis in the week that the party outlined plans to beef up the living wage, but an economic policy more firmly rooted in Keynesianism is not necessarily incompatible with a more protectionist, insular foreign policy and an authoritarian approach to criminal justice. Tack to the left on matters of money and to the right on pretty much everything else: in this combination Labour strategists may think they have a winning ticket.

For all the professions to the contrary, last week's decision to join Tory rebels in the vote on the EU budget was pure opportunism. But it was opportunism with a purpose. That it was praised by Tim Montgomerie, editor of the influential website ConservativeHome and high priest of the rightwing blogosphere, speaks volumes. It would have delighted many of those around Ed Miliband.

Several other recent decisions have been designed to steal the Tories' thunder. A couple of days earlier, Labour had voted in a parliamentary committee against government plans to increase UK funding for the IMF. In this instance, the opposition could not muster the majority to throw out the plans, but the point was made – we plucky Brits don't approve of throwing money at those Johnny foreigners. Watch out for Labour joining forces with recalcitrant Tories angry at David Cameron's insistence on maintaining levels of international development money. Such a prospect would now not be far-fetched.

A similar message is being given on crime and punishment. Instead of embracing the prime minister's recent endorsement of rehabilitation projects for prisoners, the shadow justice secretary, Sadiq Khan, chose to attack it. One might have thought a centre-left party would embrace notions such as education and skills for people in jail. Similarly, Labour has moved to the right on asylum and immigration, while failing to oppose Theresa May's insistence on a "snoopers' charter" to hold everyone's online communications.

Labour has a long tradition of talking and acting rightwing in areas of liberty. Its brief embrace of human rights, internationalism, pluralism and tolerance reached a high point in the early Blair years, epitomised by the late Robin Cook, Mo Mowlam and others. Then, in a desperate attempt to ingratiate itself with the Daily Mail, the Sun and others, the party reverted to type, through a succession of hard-nut home secretaries – David Blunkett and John Reid being the most extreme. The events of 9/11 merely reinforced a trend. The brief and sad tenure of Gordon Brown at No 10 strengthened these hard-headed, tribal tendencies, playing to a caricature of what they believed the "man at the Dog and Duck" would want to hear.

On taking over, Miliband seemed to suggest he was ready to recalibrate, to ease his party away from its thuggishness. But, with Ed Balls and Yvette Cooper at the helm, Labour is back in its comfort zone. Its strategists believe all this will be electorally successful. I have my doubts. I get the sense that voters who like their meat rare will always opt for the Tories. In tactical terms, Miliband may score a few points on 24-hour news, particularly as he identifies policy after policy that drive a wedge between Cameron and the Liberal Democrats.

Successful or not, this is a far cry from what those on the liberal left would expect from Labour, particularly while in opposition. The race to the bottom is on. Labour and the Tories are vying for the lowest common denominator, for the title of defender of Little England. Good luck to them both. Although I might wish otherwise, they are both conforming to an introspective miserabilist view of Britain. In the interests of transparency, the least Miliband should do is wear his new mantle with pride.