The Instructions Have Changed

Keynes once said that when the facts changed he changed his mind: "what would you do sir?" being his closing comment.

Sometimes though it's not that the facts have changed, sometimes you get the suspicion that it might be the instructions, the talking points so lovingly prepared, that have changed.

Polly Toynbee tells us today that:

The amount of this work contracted to the private or voluntary sector stays the same: nine out of 10 unemployed are found jobs via Jobcentre Plus within a year, with only the hardest last tenth handed over to contractors after that. But contracts will be sharper, only paying by results once people have stayed in work for six months.

Back in January she was spitting tacks about this very point:

But here's one catch with Pathways. As there is no money, most of it is contracted out to companies who can put the money up front to fund the scheme. They are only paid at the end of the year on results for numbers into work. So virtually all the contractors are companies that can raise investment. Only two are voluntary sector, and large enough to finance this. Charity law prevents most charities from taking such a gamble.
...

Only very large companies have that kind of up-front cash: some have never even done this work before. Smaller charities with long and admirable track records have been ruled out: they may get subcontracts but that means 10% is taken off the top and they already work with no spare margins.

What's more, some of these companies are famous for cream-skimming: they simply park the hopeless cases and work only on the likely successes. Jobcentres and voluntary organisations help their whole caseload, even the bad prospects. The government is not "ideologically neutral", as it relies on a kind of PFI where mainly only private companies can put up the money. Talk to a charity like Tomorrow's People, already delivering well on the New Deal, and they are outraged at being excluded for lack of investment cash. If the Treasury allowed proceeds of welfare programmes to be recycled, then smaller charities could afford to bid for contracts.

The facts haven't changed in that period of time. Perhaps it's just the emphasis that she's asked to put on them that have?