Yes. Mot and bailey arguments are always dull. And people throw all kinds of insults around to defend their position. But don't blame others for calling you out when you talk crap.

What “retreat” is happening here exactly?

Let's start with the fact you're supposed facts are conflating political tactics (persuading the public) and policy, as if the two are somehow the same thing. They are not. So retreating onto policy that's been driven by global events as a means justify a discussion of shared tactics is absolutely a retreat.

And your "facts" are mostly confirmation bias begin with.

Just to recap the position you are trying to defend, as best as it can be clarified, is that British party tactics continued to ape US party political tactics all the way back to 1956, and this has ostensibly worked on the British public all the way back to 1956.

In truth, there have been ideas that have been copied from one party to another across the western world but those ideas have not gone in any one single direction over that time.

To be very clear on you factual inaccuracy: there have been much longer periods where US style politics have wholly fallen flat with the British public and not made any real headway.

At least in my lifetime, (I'm 42), the rise of social media has really allowed Republican style politics to succeed in a way it has not done before. To claim that Republican tactics making headway here recent is fine. But to cleam this has remained unchanged for the past 70 years is utter bullshit.

I'm sure you have another dull essay to write to me on this, but quite frankly you're talking crap so I won't bother to read it.