Sorry about the delay in this posting, what with one thing and another I
forgot I had stashed it in my drafts folder.

What a great response from Paul (see jiscmail postings for June), those not
interested in the debate on the future of social policy best delete now
because this will probably go on a bit.

I will respond as briefly as I can to the points Paul raises but first I
would like to emphasise what I think has been shown to be the key issue
framing much of the debate.  It concerns the function of academic social
policy.  On the one hand it has a function of vocational education and
training for work in the public and voluntary sectors (although many of
these skills are transferrable into the private sector as well).  On the
other it is not just about anyalsing institutional or state welfare but,
and I think it is here where the differences are, about welfare per se.
The first recognisably academic pursuit of welfare began in 1912 at the
London School of Economics as the Department of Social Science. The stated
purpose was to inquire into the causes of poverty and offered a one year
course "for those who wish to prepare themselves to engage in the many
forms of social and charitable effort" (Titmuss, 1958).  Social Policy was
never just about analysis and research- these were just the means and was
what originally seperated it from sociology and other connected
disciplines.  The clear ends of social policy was to train and engage as
agents of social change to bring about what has come to be termed as
welfare rather than the only marginally more vague 'social and charitable
effort'.

This being my core belief and argument I can respond to the points.

1.  I was trying to show that the statement/question itself was slightly
illogical because an either/or definition of social policy is not
applicable.  In anycase 'everything' is well defined, as, well,
everything.  This may seem like hair splitting but the distinction is
crucial.  All human activity has the potential, in theory at least, to
result in a welfare outcome to a greater or lesser extent.  Social Policy
is not defined by what it is not- it has a clear internally consistant goal
of working towards a more welfare orientated society (however that is
defined).

2.  Following on from this I think that Social Policy has not and is not
defined by what it has chosen to study in the past because it is unlike any
other discipline.  I can't believe I am going to say this but I guess I'm
arguing that Social Policy is not a science and more of a political project-
 at least as far as its second objective is concerned.  Certainly as far as
training, research and education goes academic social policy uses
scientific techniques and can claim legitimate status as a scientific
discipline.  However, on top of that I feel we have a political objective
to pursue welfare to the widest and deepest possible extent.  Therefore
unlike other disciplines we need not, indeed must not confine ourselves to
certain areas because of tradition.  We are problem solvers and must go
where the problem takes us, where ever that may lead.  Only then will be
able to produce joined-up solutions to joined-up problems.  For me that is
social policy's greatest attraction.

3. I agree with the first bit but I disagree on interpretation of where the
public stands.  It is not intransigence to change but despair of ever
seeing any such thing!  Political rhetoric aside there can be little doubt
that we live in new times but equally sure that very old dillemas remain
and for many real change has been scant.  I certainly agree that mass-
publics display widespread ignorance and maintain unrealistic, false and
hugely inconsistant beliefs.  One of the areas we should be most active.

4. I think I have given my opinion on this.

5.  Absolutely, I think we are currently largely inert and I think our
critical faculties have been under assault not only because welfare and
social policies have come under attack but perhaps also our difficulty in
more effectively co-ordinating the two objectives I first mentioned.

6.  This is back to the first objective of supplying vocational training
and education and I agree absolutely.

Perhaps we can turn the debate towards how we can address these things,
Tayor-gooby's ideas seemed to be a good start but what else can we do.  I
have loads of ideas but I have said enough for now so hopefully someone
else will help carry the debate further