There are two different ways you can respond to terrorism, and both of those ways were on display this week in Britain.
Prime Minister Theresa May reacted in the Conservative way today.

She said: "When I stood on the steps of Downing Street after the London attack I said enough is enough and things have got to change.
Above and beyond that, she said: “We should do even more to restrict the freedom and the movements of terrorist suspects when we have enough evidence to know they present a threat, but not enough evidence to prosecute them in full in court.
"And if human rights laws get in the way of doing these things, we will change those laws to make sure we can do them.
"If I am elected as Prime Minister on Thursday, I can tell you that this vital work begins on Friday."

So the problem is too many human rights.
Gotcha.
Representing the far-right is Niles Farage. His solution is even simpler, an oldy but a goody from British history - internment camps.

Of course, mainstream Republicans are already there with Farage, so I guess we have that to look forward to.
What is not on the agenda for May is publishing an investigation into the foreign funding of extremist Islamist groups. That's not something she has time for.

The other way you can respond to the terror attacks is the way Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn responded.

And speaking in London, he will say the West needs an effective response to ISIS that “fights rather than fuels terrorism”.
He will vow that a Labour government would change the UK’s approach – signalling British troops would be brought back home.
“We must be brave enough to admit the ‘war on terror’ is simply not working,” he will say...
One senior Tory said: “This speech is offensive, insulting to those who have sacrificed their lives abroad defending us at home and totally out of touch with the mood of the country.”
...But an ex-Labour frontbencher told the Sun: “It’s clear he’s making a link between the efforts of our troops and Manchester.
“This weak and warped world view only gives comfort to Britain’s enemies. Patriotic Labour MPs will be appalled .”

Corbyn said this because MI6 funnelled foreign fighters with suspected links to al-Qaeda from the streets of Britain to Libya, including the Manchester suicide bomber. This happened while Theresa May was Home Secretary.
Defence Secretary Michael Fallon who said Corbyn was "wrong to link foreign policy to terror", ignoring the fact that UK's Libyan policy was terror.

The British news media, and the American news media, would never agree that foreign policy had anything to do with terror attacks. It's treason to even suggest it.
That's just the way the world is.

Or is it?

This poll came out today.

An overwhelming majority of people agree with Jeremy Corbyn that British involvement in foreign wars has put the public at greater risk of terrorism, according to a new poll.
The exclusive ORB survey for The Independent found 75 per cent of people believe interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya have made atrocities on UK soil more likely.

Seventy-Five Percent!
That's amazing. The mainstream media meme of terrorists falling out of the sky and doing things randomly for mysterious purposes has nothing to do with what people actually think.
Not only that, the breakdown is even more interesting.

Within that, some 68 per cent of Tory voters agreed foreign wars have enhanced the risks of terrorism at home. So did 80 per cent of Labour supporters and 79 per cent of people that voted for the Liberal Democrats in 2015.

2/3rd of Tory voters agree with Corbyn.

If gamblers are to be believed, Labour will still come up short in Thursday's election.
They are probably right.

Tories usually outperform polls. I think it will be different this time, but history says otherwise.

But there’s a catch — and a potential saving grace for May. Although the polls haven’t been very accurate in the U.K., the errors have usually run in the same direction: Conservatives tend to beat their polls there. (There’s been no comparable phenomenon in the U.S., where polls have erred toward both Democrats and Republicans about equally often in past elections.) That was the case in 2015, for instance, when Conservatives outperformed their polls by a net of 6 percentage points. There was an even worse error in 1992, when polls showed Labour narrowly ahead but instead Conservatives won in a landslide, making for a 9-point polling miss. That election gave rise to the term “Shy Tory Factor,” the idea that Conservative (Tory) voters were reluctant to declare their true voting intention to pollsters....
And betting market prices imply a Conservative win by 9 or 10 percentage points rather than their 7-point lead in the polling average. Since pundits expect Conservatives to beat their polls, the First Rule of Polling Errors would therefore predict that Labour would beat their polls instead.

Probably the more realistic scenario is for Tories to win the most, but lose a few dozen seats.
However, that means there will be one clear loser on Thursday - the neoliberal Blairites.

They reluctantly admit Corbyn has had a good campaign but maintain their core belief – the same conviction that caused 172 Labour MPs to sign a motion of a no confidence in Corbyn last summer and resulted in Owen Smith’s failed leadership challenge – that he must be removed if the party is ever to win a parliamentary majority again.
The problem for them is that Corbyn’s strong election performance has made this much harder.
One Labour candidate admitted the leader's rising personal ratings meant the anti-Corbyn faction is weaker than before the election, making it even more difficult for him to be forcibly removed post-defeat as members have rallied around the incumbent.
“It will be harder if he’s seen to have had a good campaign,” the candidate said.