With successive English governments extolling the virtues of greater choice and control within welfare services, there is growing debate about concepts such as direct payments and personal budgets (in the UK and in many developed countries). With the evidence base inevitably patchy and incomplete, there have been increasing criticisms of these approaches from the social care trade press and from academic policy commentators alike. Against this background, this paper reviews the concerns that are emerging and explores some of the limitations of current debates—many of which make an implicit appeal to ‘the evidence’ in order to justify increasingly polarised views. In particular, the paper argues that many current accounts are based on an imperfect understanding of the principles at stake; on a failure to apply the same burden of proof to the old system as well as the new; on prior attitudes to state services and to current social care; and on a potentially limited adherence to more traditional forms of evidence-based practice.