Fatal resource misallocations

If the Home Office didn't waste £1.5bn a year trying and failing to enforce immigration restrictions, MI5 would have had the resources to monitor Mohammad Sidique Khan properly and 52 lives would have been saved.
Is this claim a cheap shot? In some senses, yes. It's impossible to allocate resources completely efficiently. And the public seem to want "strong borders" - or the appearance thereof - and that means less spending on something else.
In other senses, though, I'm not sure the point is so cheap. It highlights the fact that, in government, misallocations of spending priorities can have fatal consequences; in companies, by contrast, only money is lost.
But this, surely, means that such decisions must be taken with greater care in government than they are in companies. This means two things.
First, the decision-makers should be more competent. But this doesn't seem to be the case. How many ministers have more qualifications in management, decision theory or cost-benefit analysis than an average company manager?   
Second, such allocations should follow consultation (at least) with stake-holders.  But are the government's consultations about the forthcoming Comprehensive Spending Review really adequate?

Comments

[Jim]

"in government, misallocations of spending priorities can have fatal consequences; in companies, by contrast, only money is lost"

So no companies have ever killed anyone by neglecting to spend enough on safety or monitoring? Are you sure?

[Mark Wadsworth]

OK, this government wastes money on an industrial scale, probably most of that £1.5bn was wasted as well, but who's to say that as a result of that cack-handed effort to "secure our borders", they didn't prevent other unsavoury characters from coming in, who would have instigated other crimes?

It's unlikely I know, but possible.

[mat]

Exactly what Mark said.

[sanbikinoraion]

Exactly what Jim said.

[chris]

Sorry, chaps - the five convicted yesterday, like the 7/7 bombers, were either British-born or arrived here as young children. No immigration controls could have fingered them as terrorists.
Sorry, Jim - you are right. But I don't think my main point is affected.

[Mark Wadsworth]

I wasn't talking about the five convicted yesterday, I was saying it is theoretically possible (but unlikely) that the Home Office actually manages to prevent some criminals (of whatever ilk, not just terrorists) coming in to the UK.

And you're not up to date with PC-speak, are you? Those five are referred to in the MSM as "British" and not "British-born", because the latter expression suggests that they are somehow second-class citizens (which they clearly were and are - but I'm not allowed to say that any more).

[jamal]

I disagree. it is more realistic to say that if so many billions were not spent on the Iraq war then funds could have beenused by home security forces.

[Young Man]

Like prison border controls are more about deterrence than prevention. If you really want to get into GB you can, th EU makes it impossible to have a fullproof system.

But deterence is important.

Chris, without immigartion control GB would have a massive class low paid immigrant worker class (probably arab), similar to the situation in the US with mexicans (although presumably legal).

Is that what you really want?

[Alex]

And we haven't got a massive low-paid immigrant worker class? News to me, old fruit.

[Planeshift]

"because the latter expression suggests that they are somehow second-class citizens (which they clearly were and are - but I'm not allowed to say that any more)."

You just did say that.

been arrested yet?

Thought not.