In the UK, the response to the Paris Attacks has already turned into an argument over police funding, with a senior police officer telling Theresa May that the expected cuts in the Chancellor’s Spending Review will ‘reduce very significantly’ the UK’s ability to respond to a Paris-style attack. SMF Chief Economist Nida Broughton lays out George Osborne’s options, concluding that he may be able to avoid the appearance of compromising security by changing the definition of ‘defence’.
Labour’s divisions over intervention in Syria prompt a bout of hand-wringing from the Fabian Society about the importance of diplomacy and development, but there is no sign of the rift closing, not when Mary Creagh MP is writing for Progress that “Isis/Daesh is a fascist organisation that must be defeated. The longer we leave it the harder it will be.”
In Europe, “the Paris attacks will serve to entrench bitter divisions” over the migration crisis, says Open Europe, and boost growing support for anti-immigration parties.
Politics aside, no-one has any idea how to stop attacks like the one in Paris. “Alas”, historian Robert Tombs writes in an excellent piece for Politeia, “the only response seems to be increased and sustained vigilance… It may mean that we can only feel free to continue our ordinary lives under increased state surveillance.”