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’.
On Tuesday, Theresa May told the Conservative party conference:
“What I’m proposing is a deal: the fewer people there are who wrongly claim asylum in Britain, the more generous we can be in helping the most vulnerable people in the world’s most dangerous places. And my message to the immigration campaigners and human rights lawyers is this: you can play your part in making this happen – or you can try to frustrate it.”
When the Adam Smith Institute produces a piece titled ‘Owen Jones is entirely right here’, you know there’s consensus on an issue. With a refugee crisis unfolding in Calais, how different would our approach be to immigration if we didn’t just care about people who happen to have been born in Britain, they ask? Similarly, British Future calls for some perspective from the right-wing press, noting that ‘the world is struggling with its largest refugee crisis since the Second World War’ but the number of refugees in the UK has actually fallen by 76,439 since 2011.