In this assignment, I will provide a reflective account of my intervention with a client who for the purpose of this assignment and anonymity will be known as E. I will look at processes through which my developments in knowledge, skills and attitudes will be looked at in terms of the intervention over several sessions. Some of the sessions were with my supervisor with who I was able to reflect on the practice.
On taking on this process of intervention, E completed a self assessment which is a collection of OCD specific and general anxiety. E, having marked highly on this, provided me with an initial picture of symptoms and the severity of any concurrent problems, eg. the severity of anxiety.After this a clinical evaluation was done which allowed a highly detailed picture of E’s OCD.
During this behaviour therapy was explained in an attempt to evaluate other anxiety problems that are present. This was a method generally, help treat OCD and for E to learn a variety of empirically supported strategies for managing his OCD.In consultation, E wanted to look at his OCD behaviour that has affected his life.Using the ABC framework, I formularised questions so as to take out reasons and feelings of looking when these triggers were occurring and to look at coping and confronting strategies so as to minimise their effect.
It should be emphasised that during these sessions E understood his OCD triggers and felt that they could not be eradicated, they could be attenuated by psychosocial interventions. We discussed the fact that though behaviour therapy, medication and cognitive therapy are the three empirically supported interventions for OCD, that we will only be looking at the cognitive-behaviour therapy. The use of ABC framework helped to underpin his behaviours to his past history and possible origins of his OCD traits.Model of ReflectionFor the purposes of this reflection, I used John’s model of reflection (1994) as this is more appropriate for complex cases of making decisions.
As a therapist in the mental health field, I agree with Gustafsson and Fagerberg (2003) who state that reflection as a tool is of the utmost importance and the advantages gained, can give deeper insight into the professional development of professional in the field. I feel that I needed to understand more fully the impact of reflective management of the case and of my own development in terms of how it was going, and how successful I was.I felt that Jacobson model of recovery (2001) was an appropriate model to use in conjunction with the Johns model of reflection. Jacobson’s model offers a positive route to recovery by the way of “looking forward”.
Further healing is encouraged by active participation in self help activities.I encouraged E via self help activities thereby encouraging him to take control and hence start to encourage change in behaviour. In some ways I felt that I am empowering E and thus within the parameters of Jacobson’s model (2001).Other techniques used with the client included positive “culture of healing” (Fisher 2006) and socratic questioning (Blackburn and Tavaddle 1996).
This process of socratic questioning is efficient in that it allows precipitation of feelings, thoughts and behaviours to come together for both E and I and hence lead us both individually in projecting ways forward (Calvert and Palmer 2003). The sessions were structured (Wells 1997) and it allowed a more clear critical formulation of problem with anxiety with E, and hence aid and facilitate recovery.In my supervision sessions with my line manager, I asked what was my short term goal and what were my long term goals (Johns 1994). I tried to alleviate E’s perceived suffering by using aspects of CBT, specific to the triggers causing onset of OCD symptoms.
I was careful not to enforce my own views rather, it was a collaborative process whereby E was able to “see” for himself, the way ahead in terms of coping with his own signs and symptoms. In my position, I was able to reflect on the skills and the efficiency of these, in practice with E and how I could better them.(Stuart 2001) believes that to verbalise communication with the clients it helps to build a good therapeutic relationship and hence I was trying to communicate to E, the parameters with which we were both working and the limitations with which success could be measured. This helped E to see for himself his own progress over the weeks.
Confidentiality and issues around this, like legal and ethical issues need to be conveyed and agreed so that the client feels comfortable (Nelson Jones 2003). I feel E was anxious about the information that he was sharing with me, which in turn, slowed down progress in the sessions. He was reticent and hence not able to speak from the heart and be open (Keats 2000).I engaged with E in a sensitive way by getting his permission and agreeing what information I was able to share with my line manager (supervisor).
My line manager in turn, was happy for me to continue with the initial formulation as it was a necessary step in socialising the client to do CBT in the long term. My line manager asked me why had I done this with E and what was my thinking behind this. It was clear that I needed to understand my motives and strategy as an aid to reflection (John 1994) to which my reply was that though I was able to engage with E initially I had not set the boundaries in terms of confidentially in a manner that E was comfortable with and which needed exploring. When done, this enabled both of us (and hence the formulation and intervention) to work better.
I wondered if E’s levels of self esteem were hindering his progress but I was not able to gauge this initially, in hindsight I should have used, Fennell’s model of development and maintenance to gauge and formulate his problem earlier but I was not aware of it until I was made aware in my supervision session. My own anxiety was an issue as I feel that perhaps I was letting E down but I was made aware that it is ‘normal’ to feel this way. One issue that I raised with my supervisor was that E had negative feelings about Muslims (and I am one). I did not want to create a bias in my intervention work with him and having discussed this with my supervisor, I was able to make a conscious effort not to discriminate according to his beliefs.
My re-assessment of myself and subsequent reflection allowed me to work in a more positive way that was professional and empathic.I feel these processes are best expressed by Proctors Interactive Model (1986) who labelsmy introspectivity and emotional response as “restorative-supportive”. Another view supported by Proctors model is the method of gaining knowledge through sessions/discussions with the line manager (supervisor) and applying the new knowledge with the client, hence improving the formulation. Proctor calls this the “formative educational” function.
What factors influenced interventionMany factors influence the type of collaboration and hence positive intervention experience that can take place, but one of the most important is the way that the relationship between myself-supervisor and myself-E progressed over the period of the sessions. This also happens to be the best way to do formulations. They need to be organic, that is they need to improve and change with the changing needs of the client but at the same time, my own learning experience which is enhanced by my supervisionOf course other factors are; the time limitations of the therapeutic process, the rate of uptake of the homework exercises with E and the relative success with which the process can change from purely medication indicated to CBT attenuated symptoms, enhanced by critical management of the case.What have I learntI have learnt from my practice that reflecting, and in particular continuous reflection is indicated for positive interventions.
Driscoll (2000) argues this point by saying that though Proctor’s model is effective, it can only be viewed as tentative guide and that the best outcomes can only be shaped by the practitioners who continuously reflect on their intervention skills and knowledge. I found that E was able to respond better to a formulation that he had a hand in producing than merely a paternalistic standpoint whereby I was dictating. The anxiety that he felt at the beginning were as a result of the inhibitions he had.Bishop (1994) suggests that all practitioners should have clinical supervision as a means of reflection on their practice.
He says that this would improve the quality of the client care overall and hence would ensure quality assurance through quality of service. I also feel that my personal attitude has changed. I am more aware of the differences of approach to formulations and also the differences between care and therapeutic practice, in that I am able to challenge my own age old views on aspects of mental illness. I was also able to work through my feelings when E insinuated that Muslims should leave the UK and when he said he did not want to live in an area where there was any significant concentration of them.
I have learnt that I need to improve my attending skills, I need to organise my therapeutic sessions with my client in a sequential way such that it allows more contact with my supervisor and also more time for introspection. I feel that I have learnt to keep a sessional reflective diary which has helped me to build on my practice learning. I also understand that though E’s OCD had elements of faith focussed obsession, I was able to steer away from what could be termed as “ethically dubious” (Salkovskis 1998).Instead, Salkovskis advises, that its better to “find the basis of the clients worries, and then try to deal with them in the clients own religious framework”.
(Salkovskis 1998; p76).ConclusionThrough my practice what has precipitated out from the sessional intervention is that clients need and should be empowered with respect to making choices regarding care. In this way they are able to take some control of their own recovery.Personally my skills have generally developed to incorporate verbal and non-verbal communication, and personal attitudes towards formulising techniques which are more inclusive.
I feel that I am developing greater awareness of OCD with faith focus and this will in future, help me to become a better practitioner.I feel that though reflection is a valuable tool in practice and produces positive effects on the practitioners practice, it does have drawbacks. One of the drawbacks is the assumption that it should allow more influential input from the client and when that does not happen, it can be seen to be paternalistic which can be harmful to the overall intervention and hence recovery.However both positive and negative aspects are important to understand as they are both valid for us to continue on the path of developing positive interventionary toolkits which are empirical yet organic to reflect the development of CBT.
Reflection On Placement Practice
1) IntroductionMy 80-day placement gave me another experience in not only developing my skills of working with young people with disabilities but also in transferring my skills that I had previously used in my previous job as an assessor of children with life threatening illnesses and special needs.2) The Reason for the InterventionZ had been previously prescribed Epilim medication by his GP; this medication has since been proven to controlling his epilepsy.
When Z does not have his medication he is unable to concentrate for long periods. The fitting also affects his safety, as when he is having a fit he has an increased tendency to fall. It was therefore agreed by the GP it was imperative that Z takes his medication to enable him to have as high a quality of life as possible. This work was carried out to improve Z’s ability to take his prescribed medication more effectively whilst at the unit.
The work was carried out with unit staff members, as there were no issues at the school or within the home regarding this matter.3) The Legal frameworkAs previously mentioned the unit provides home-from-home respite care for young people between the ages of 5-16 who had been identified as having a severe learning difficulty the residents were all accommodated under section 20 of the children Act 1989. Therefore the care that the young people received was continued whilst they were at the unit, a large part of this carry over included the administering of medication.Section one of the Children Act 1989 focuses upon the welfare of the child and states that in any dealings the welfare of the child is to be considered the most important factor when dealing with children.
This section of the act also refers to the possible harm that the child would be at risk of suffering. Section 22 of the same act outlines duty of the Local Authority to safeguard and promote the well being of children in their care. As the GP had instructed the agency that the medication was necessary to stabilise Z’s health as well as reduce the possibility of injury as he has the tendency to fall during a fit, I sought to find the most effective way for this to happen that caused the minimum level of distress to Z as possible. Upon reflection I decided that anti-oppressive practice would be the best theory to combine with group work, please see section 4.
3 for more details.4) Reflective PracticeBoud, Keogh and Walker developed their own model of reflection in 1985, the model is similar to that of Kolb’s learning model but takes into account the possible effects of feelings and values upon the learning experience. Their model has three stages: -1. Returning to the experience by recalling the past event2.
Understanding and acknowledging ones own and others feelings that were felt during the experience3. Re-evaluating the experience by adding new knowledge that has been derived from this reflective process.During my sessions at the unit, I found that my values played a large part in my reflective learning when working with this service user group than when working with young people on my 50-day placement. Due to this, I found that I utilised Boud, Keogh and Walker’s model more at this time than Kolb’s learning model as outlined in the same stages below: -4.
1. During one of my sessions at the unit, I was able to observe Z being administered his medication. The young person in question has severe learning difficulties, no verbal communication but his comprehension was at a higher developmental level.The medication (Epilim) that is used to control his epilepsy is usually administered by Mom and Dad, in his drinks.
At the unit, the staff attempts to carry on with the same routine as at home. However, Z dislikes taking it in this manner when he is there.4.2.
Z became very distressed when the cup was presented. Due to Z’s limited ability to express his needs he then began to run away from staff members, the medication was eventually syringed into his mouth after ten minutes.Shortly after this Z’s behaviour was less emotional, however I noticed that during the whole evening Z refused to have any drinks that were offered to him. The unit has to be kept quite warm at times due to the mix of children in the unit at any given time; Z’s refusal to have a drink also posed issues relating to him getting dehydrated especially as he is unable to control his dribbling and looses a lot of fluid anyway.
The fact that Z tolerated having his medication via syringe I felt was a strength and this formed the basis of my intervention.After reflection on this experience during supervision with my practice teacher and placement supervisor, I explained that I understood the importance of Z having his medication and that I was aware that if he did not have his medication that would increase fitting. However, that I was not happy with the method that had been adopted to administer the medication. My supervisor was more than happy for me to suggest a new approach.
After reflection during supervision, I discussed anti-oppressive practice issues and ways in which staff could decrease some of the power and authority that was placed over Z at medication time. By making drink times more social and fun instead of a battle for example.In my experience, increased fitting would pose barriers to Z’s ability to learn in school, as the increased brain activity would be too high. Not only that but in my experience the fitting would also restrict Z’s ability to participate as fully as he could in his environment, therefore on this basis his medication was important for him to take.
RISKDue to safety reasons I felt that simply leaving the cup near to Z and allowing him to drink it at his leisure would have compromised the safety of the other young people on the unit as unattended medication may be mistakenly taken by them. I also felt it was important that staff were present when the medication was taken as they had to observe that the full dosage had been taken and not spilled elsewhere.4.3 When this had taken place, I was able to discuss with staff and advocate on his behalf and discuss ways in which we could incorporate drink time as a group social activity.
I decided that this should be done as soon as possible. The new approach involved some singing games; bubble blowing activities and then drinks time. This approach was to be adopted by all staff with all children who were at the unit at the time. I decided that medication would be syringed in the short term at least, as Z was tolerable of this.
Therefore by all staff approaching Z in the same manner Z would receive clear and consistent messages of what was expected of him and also he would not feel at a disadvantage as he was doing the same activities as the other young people. The plan was set as a long-term plan to be reviewed on a monthly basis.By decreasing anxiety and the pressure on Z and staff for his medication to be taken, this in time would win back Z’s confidence to take a drink from staff and therefore reduce the need for syringing medication, as staff were not happy to do this due to their own values. I felt that Z would feel happier having a drink once the pressure he was noticing from staff had decreased and his medication could once again be added to his drinks.
5) Anti-Oppressive IssuesAt placement, I felt able to challenge the oppression in this instance. However, there were times where I felt unable to challenge certain oppressions. For example I felt unable to challenge the minibus pick up times, some of the children were being picked up at 8pm on the school transport to travel round the borough to pick up the other young people, which in my opinion was not necessary as the school was only five minutes away from the unit.This can be identified in Freire’s three levels of consciousness.
Magical consciousness was the level at where individuals were most oppressed and disempowered. At this level, the oppressed group had also internalised the oppressor’s feelings about them.The second level which was “na�ve consciousness”, this was where individuals were at the level where they had identified the oppression but felt unable to change anything (such as myself with the afore mentioned issue). I also saw my problem as individual in that I assumed the other staff had not also shared my thoughts, but after talking to them regarding Z they all felt the same way and were willing to try a new approach.
The third level was critical consciousness this was the most empowered stage. This was where individuals were aware of the oppression but also willing to challenge the inequality and oppression. To some degree I feel Z was at this stage, it appeared he was aware he had to have the drink but the only way to regain the power placed on him was to refuse it.Freire’s level of consciousness has a great level of impact on the reflective process.
For example, how empowered I am feeling also impacts on the level of service my service users receive as this determines whether I challenge the oppression.6) Effectiveness of the Models and Theories UsedThe combination of the social model and the medical model of disability was used during this piece of work. The medical model to some degree focuses on the individual as the problem and what can be done to change them to cope better in their environment. Therefore, medication was provided and continued to be administered.
The social model however looks at how the environment itself can be either enabling or inhibiting to the individual. Therefore, by changing the way we approached Z in the short term we were able to improve his circumstances in the long term.This combination appeared to be working; the medication was being administered with no upset to Z, this also limited the risk of his fits increasing and the risk to his personal safety. Z was also taking his drinks and beginning to build up his trust with staff at the unit regarding this matter, which also helped to keep him hydrated.
The approach was very effective Z was not upset any longer due to this reason and also became more sociable with staff during this time.I also felt that Boud, Keogh and Walker’s model was useful as it acknowledged the heightened feelings of the service user and myself and how negative feelings can in turn lead to a negative outcome.7) What I Have LearntI feel that this piece of work not only highlights the importance of trained staff to be aware of how to practice anti-oppressively but also how important it is to share experiences, knowledge, values and our own personal perspective.The new Department of Health guidance “Valuing People, A New Strategy for Learning Disability for the 21st Century” suggests that 75% of employees working in the area of social care and health are unqualified.
The government’s objectives are to now ensure that these employees are adequately trained and skilled. The policy guidelines aim to ensure that people with disabilities receive a good quality of service that meets and caters for their needs. The policy guidelines state that this includes persons with severe learning disabilities as well as those suffering with epilepsy.I feel that this piece of work not on substantiates this need but also highlights the importance of anti-oppressive practice to be implemented in everything I do with my service users.
In essence, anti-oppressive practice is not subject to choice of use but a way of life, a method to be adopted and engrained in my practice.The staff at the agency itself were very open to me discussing my thoughts and new approach to working with them. I strongly feel that staff morale also has a direct impact on the quality of service that users receive. For example in my experience staff disempowerment is more likely to lead to magical or na�ve consciousness rather than critical consciousness.
This in turn leads to a poor service.I feel that as a social worker I too need to strive to be at a critical level of consciousness as it is my job to ensure that the service my service users receive is as tailored to their individual needs as possible as well as being provided in an anti-oppressive manner that seeks to empower rather than disempower.I have also learnt that people with severe learning disabilities are able to feel and react to oppression as well as feel and think in the same manner. These individuals are to also to be given the same dignity, respect and treatment as we would anyone else.
8) UpdateDuring my last week at placement Z had started to consistently accept drinks from staff. This was observed by myself and I also used case notes to confirm this.
Outline The Key Elements Of The New Rights Critique Of Public Welfare
According to Alcock, 1996 the term New Right used to refer to the ‘pro-market, anti -state ideological perspective’ which came to be associated with the Conservative government in the 1970’s – 1980’s, it was this associated with Thatcherism and Conservatism’s influence that ‘made the New Right new’ (1996:126).The New (new) Right therefore started to emerged during the 1970’s in light of the economic crisis of 1973, and as a reaction to the rapid expansion of welfare state expenditure after the war. The New Right believed that Britain was in an economic crisis and had economically under-performed compared to its counterparts since the 2nd World War because of the growth in public and social welfare expenditure (George & Wilding, 1993; Alcock,1996).
The New Right believed their ideas concerning the welfare state were ‘absolutely essential’ if Britain’s economy was to survive and be transformed from its present crisis (Alcock, 1996). Their transformation of the welfare state was long overdue since they argued that the crisis of the economy and welfare began as a consequence of war and due to the Keynes and Beveridge’s ideals about society in the 1940’s which was a far cry from the society of the 1970’s.These notions were also supported by Masland, 1992 who felt that the Beveridge report upon which the welfare state was born, discourages individuals, self reliance, voluntary organisations and private incentives which was why the New Right were particularly critical of public welfare and were keen to see a reduction in public and social expenditure. A reduction of expenditure could only be achieved by transferring the responsibility of welfare services onto the private market together with a greater contribution form the voluntary and informal sectors hence a reduction in the role of the welfare state.
George & Wilding, 1993 believed tat the New Right were critical of the welfare state upon economic, political and ideological grounds, it was the latter of these three which was based upon instinctive beliefs about human nature and human capacity that made the New Rights critique ‘profoundly ideological’ in nature and thus why they held a general attitude of ‘suspicion and anxiety’ towards the welfare state (1993:20).This essay will firstly look at how it criticised the welfare state ideological terms, secondly upon economic terms and lastly political terms. Crucial to the New Right’s critique of the public welfare in ideological terms, is the mistaken view held by public welfare supporters concerning human nature and the nature of society.The New Right argued that humans need incentives for good behaviour and punishment for bad behaviour, which is the exact reverse of what public welfare supports believe and what public welfare does, instead they see a more optimistic viewpoint of human nature and assume people will continue to be just as motivated and productive even if the costs of failure are reduced and taken care of by public welfare benefits, humans are driven and incensed to work by social concerns and social goals to work, hence they are not self centred and individualistic in natureThe New Right critics like Clarke ; Cochrane, 1994 thought very differently, they believed that the public welfare actually created disincentives to work and Gilder, 1981 argued that by providing for the unknown and the danger of failure damages the nature of capitalism and the nature of man.
High taxation and generous public welfare benefits presented the individual with an attractive alternative to paid employment and this creates a dependency culture.Alcock, 1996 further argued that high taxes to fund welfare expenditure and welfare benefit effectively discourages their motivation to provide for themselves and their families, once this happens and they become discourages they are also effectively trapped in the dependency culture which equates to poverty.Murray, 1990 was a firm believer, similarly to the New Right of the 1970’s that public welfare created a dependency culture and effected individuals behaviour and moral standings, Murray was on the other hand however writing about a different welfare state to that of the New Right in the 1970’s in which the New Right were more concerned with the effects of public welfare upon human nature.The New Right see human nature and individuals as self centred and individualistic in their motivation, which enables them to respond positively to individual reward and individual punishment, the reverse of the collectivism that is created by the public welfare system which according to George ; Wilding, 1993 is dangerous and naive.
Therefore it seems that the New Right are arguing that public welfare provides disincentives to work though high taxes and generous public welfare benefits, and a demoralisation of human nature and society whereby the fabric of the nation is undermined and damaged. Willets, 1992 supported these notions put forward by the New Right thinkers such as Clark ; Cockrane 1994 and George ; Wilding 1993.Willetts, 1992 felt that public welfare undermined the crucial social value of individual and social responsibility, since there is no consequences to individuals actions because the individual is protected, and compensated by the safety net or nanny state of public welfare which is a drain on society. Public welfare ignores the importance of individual choice and the promotion of individual growth and responsibilities, so the New Right argues because public welfare leads to the assumption that the state knows best and that politicians and professionals can be trusted with welfare provision.
For the New Right this is an unjustified faith, they cannot be trusted in ‘practice to know what sort of welfare services different people want or need’ (Alcock, 1993:129). For it is impossible for the state and the government to know how to meet these needs, any attempt which is made by public welfare with the notion that they do know and can meet these needs hence the opposed desired effect of meeting everyone individuals and in turn meets the needs of no-one (Alcock, 1993).According to the New Right the welfare state should concentrated on allowing individuals to take responsibility for their own welfare needs through private forms of welfare provision, where there is increased choice and individuals growth of responsibilities, instead of the responsibility and choice being determined and the responsibility of the state hence minimal state involvement in the provision of welfare is the answer to societies and everyone’s needs.For the New Right public welfare emphasises rights not responsibilities and obligations, which are essential for a functional, healthy society.
Mead, 1986 argued that public welfare encourage individuals to perceive society as responsible for providing everything for the individual rather than the individual providing for society, in a sense a belief that society owes the individual a living.Mead looked towards the public welfare in the US for evidence of his critique where although they didn’t have such a generous public welfare system as the UK they still had ‘minimal meaningful obligations’ attached to the welfare they provided (1986:3), and thus portrayed a message of welfare being a social right to all citizens not an obligation, which also relates back to the notion of a dependency culture with the philosophy that paid employment is not necessary due to public welfare.As well as criticising public welfare upon its ideologies the New Right were also critical of its efficiency and effectiveness in providing welfare. Universal public welfare services that are tax funded and part of state monopolies denies individuals freedom of choice and encourages inefficiency whereby the delivery of services is geared towards the interests of the organised producers rather than the consumers of welfare (Pierson, 1998).
Universalism of welfare does not encourage competition and therefore there is no real incentive for the producers of welfare to improve their efficiency and effectiveness as they are doing the job they set out to do e. g. the NHS provides universal health care which that George ; Wilding, 1993 would argue is why public welfare is insufficient and ineffective for everyone, due to funding and universalise.The New Right were not just critical of public welfare in ideological and efficiently and effectiveness terms but upon economic and political grounds.
Firstly, the New Right critique public welfare, according to Alcock, 1996 for being generally economically damaging because it interferes with the free workings or the market, the driving force for economic growth, leading to a reduction in capital growth and development that weakens the economy hence why the 1973 economic and welfare crisis occurred.According to George ; Wilding 1993 and Alcock 1996, public welfare and expenditure are a crippling drain on private market wealth and a burden on the productive elements of the economy. Due to the fact that stare provision for welfare reduces individual incentives to provide for themselves and save this in turn leads to reduced investment and savings that leads to economic recession, the recession in the 1970’s was only defeated by reducing public and state expenditure together with a reduced role of the state in public welfare.For the continuation and future growth of the economy, according to the New Right welfare expenditure and the role of the state needs to continue in defiantly otherwise Britain will face another recession (Alcock, 1993), Secondly, the New Right critique public welfare upon political grounds, their critique is focussed around the political choice theory, while although Alcock, 1993 agrees it is dubious its is however a persuasive argument.
Public welfare policies and services mean that government’s power, control and responsibilities are increased because of the ideology that social problems are due to social and structural factors. For example poverty is no longer thought upon as the fault of the individual it is due to societal factors, that should be solved and compensated for by public welfare, this is an understandable ideology George ; Wilding, 1993 argue since if its societies fault that an individual is in poverty they should find a welfare policy to solve and compensate for their misfortune.However, the New Right argue that the government only assumes responsibility for the problems because they want to be ‘electorally popular’ (Alcock, 1993:129), not because they have any real interest in solving societies social problems, sine they cannot be resolved through welfare and failure of the government upon this aim is inevitable which leads to the ‘loss of standing and authority (George & Wilding, 1993:35). In conclusion, therefore, the New Right have argued that public welfare is ‘undesirable in theory and unworkable in practice’ (Alcock, 1993:129).
They have critique the role of the state in public welfare policies upon ideological, political and economic grounds and their contribution to the debate concerning public welfare, according to George & Wilding, 1993, is ‘nothing more than critical (1993:45). Many however have argued that the New Rights alternative to public welfare is as impractical and undesirable as their own critique of public welfare, their ideologies do not offer a practical way to the complexed social needs of society.Nevertheless, the New Right supporter, Hayek, 1976 states that the New Right were not prepared to tolerate a total disappearance of public welfare, they envisaged a new public welfare system that ‘primarily gave selection and residual provision for those unable to provide for themselves through the private market’ (Alcock, 1993:129), due to the fact that a society without any form of public welfare would reduce the freedom and opportunities of those in society and make them far worse off than with an over generous public welfare system.More recent New Right thinkers have also come to realise that in reality a safety net of welfare is not only desirable but essential, but what constitutes a safety net of welfare is very subjective and left up to individual governments and politicians to interpretate how they wish.For example to subsequent Conservative government, under Mrs Thatcher they tried to reform and implement a New Right interpretation of a safety net of public welfare, originally they contemplated a revolutionary challenge to the state but in reality like the New Right the reform was restricted to the restructuring of the management and operation of welfare services and towards private sections of welfare alongside public welfare.The New Right’s ideologies upon welfare have proved to be very influential for the development welfare policies under the Conservative government of the 1970’s – 1980’s, Thathcher states Riddle, 1991 agreed and implemented many of the New Rights ideologies but she was in no sense the champion of any specific New Right ideology, as there were many other ideologies complexed ideologies present therefore Conservatism was not just the New Rights ideologies under a new name as many believed.