Contents
The summary 3 – (original page numbers)
Places people were from (outside the UK in bold) 3
Types of professionals taking part: 3
Working contexts mentioned 4
Special interests mentioned 4
Ideas/themes discussed in the chatroom 4
Using #hashtags 4
Acknowleding the roots of uACT / alliances with other groups 4
Enthusiastic responses to the event 5
The difficulty of getting the message about the value of therapy through to politicians etc 6
Capitalism/Neoliberalism/Keynesianism etc 7
IAPT-CBT and IAPT-therapy vs therapy? 9
Encroachment by other professions and paraprofessions 10
Therapy in schools 11
Medicalisation / Big Pharma / Big Money / Pathologisation / Government 11
Public knowledge / engaging the public 11
‘Evidence-based’ interventions 13
The wellbeing industry 13
Training/Education 13
Online/phone therapy 13
Diagnosis 13
‘Messy profession’ 14
IAPT/NICE/NHS 14
Community Mental Health Framework 16
Value of phone and video therapy 16
Therapy Trainings 17
Research 17
Financial Case 17
Soul/Anthroposophy/Transpersonal 17
Private Practice 18
Pay and conditions 18
Pedagogical meetings 18
Uberisation of therapy 18
BACP/UKCP/NCS etc 18
Local groups 19
Possible re-naming 19
Voluntary/unpaid work 20
Funding for the campaign 20
Possible future events 20
Books and other resources recommended by attendees 20
My references 22
The summary
In the following document, ‘therapy’ is used as a term to describe both ‘counselling’ and ‘psychotherapy’. Even though I do not recognise any substantial differences in the meaning of the two terms, the main point in this instance is to avoid writing out the two terms over and over again rather than start any theoretical arguments!
Places people were from (outside the UK in bold): Herefordshire, Hove, Edinburgh, South Yorkshire, Durham, Exeter (+Devon), Maldon (+Essex), Salford, Dorset, Manchester, London, Liverpool, Pembrey (Carmarthenshire), Glasgow, Bolton, Vietnam, Canada, Littlehampton (+West Sussex), Wales, Warrington, Buckinghamshire, Dumfries and Galloway, Warwickshire, Hampshire, Surrey, Cornwall, Sheffield, Fareham, East Kent, Chester, Bristol, Wiltshire, Staffordshire.
Types of professionals taking part: private online practitioners, counsellors, clinical psychologists, MHSWs, trainee counsellors, CBT therapists, EMDR therapists, Human Givens therapists, nutritional therapists, primary care mental health team managers, body psychotherapists, psychotherapists, trainee psychotherapists, psychoanalytic psychotherapist trainees, therapists, trainee therapists, pluralistic practitioners, low-intensity CBT practitioners, supervisors, psychotherapeutic counsellors,
Working contexts mentioned: private practice, NHS, schools, mental health charities.
Special interests mentioned: complex trauma, addictions, couples.
Ideas/themes discussed in the chatroom
Using #hashtags: Caz Binstead suggested right at the beginning we use her hashtag #TherapistsConnect to get the conversation out to her thousands of followers on Twitter. Although it is a bit of a grind using hashtags and calling attention to certain people and groups with the @ sign it is effective and maybe we need to use hashtags etc more.
Acknowleding the roots of uACT / alliances with other groups: Unite with organizations/campaigns/academics sharing the same or similar values. Someone suggested that how uACT came about via discussions in the Partners for Counselling and Psychotherapy (PCP) should be acknowledged. (I am not sure that is where it came about – was it a discussion in the PCU or the Alliance for Counselling and Psychotherapy?) There was also discussion, as we went along, about other groups with similar and/or connected agendas e.g. Drop the Disorder! (DtD), the Psychotherapy and Counselling Union (PCU), Radical Therapist Network (RTN), Disabled People Against Cuts (DPAC), a campaign for relational psychiatry was also mentioned (but no name or contact details), Counsellors Together UK (CTUK) etc (one attendee thought our campaign was the same as the latter’s). I think the reason we have had such a good response is because the title ‘universal access to counselling and psychotherapy’ is an idea(l?) which most therapists and the public (once they hear about it) can get behind. I think it is the precision of that idea which can gain support. The other organisations are important but also have their specific agendas, i.e. Drop the Disorder!’s main issue is around being opposed to diagnosing difficulties in living as medical disorders, CTUK’s main agenda is around ending the exploitation of therapists in unpaid or low-paid work, similarly the PCU is, as a union, unashamedly about supporting therapists’ pay and conditions – I think whilst aiming for universal access to therapy is related to those things they are not necessarily the same (one of Marsha’s Venn diagrams comes to mind!). But linking up with those other organisations e.g. TherapistsConnect can only be a good thing. Are we formally a member of ‘Partners for Counselling and Psychotherapy’ yet?
Juliet Lyons, the chair of the PCU, stated that the PCU are supporting the uACT campaign and that they will continue to do so. www.psychotherapyandcounsellingunion.co.uk
It was also suggested we join with critical psychiatrists who are unable to support their patients to receive long term relational support including psychotherapy.
Enthusiastic responses to the event: ‘This is the first time in years that I haven’t felt like a broken record and/or a lone voice! It’s very encouraging!!’ Lots of positive comments about James Davies’s presentation. ‘I feel like I’ve been holding my breath, and now hearing this, I can breathe again. People speaking my language!’ + lots of positive feedback to both James and Alia’s presentations.
The difficulty of getting the message about the value of therapy through to politicians etc: One attendee has written to many MPs about the value of therapy and the experience was one of being ‘stonewalled’. The attendee stated that ‘many of them don’t understand the difference between modes of therapy, so they just cite CBT as an example of what’s on offer’. She suggested ‘parliamentarians and policymakers need much better understanding of mental health’. I think we need to take this on board. Sometimes we start from an assumption that people know what we mean by therapy. Maybe there could be a promotion of the types of therapy we could offer if given a chance. We could get proponents of the different approaches explaining what we can offer? One attendee was on a BACP committee trying to engage with the government (I think about therapists in schools).
It was mentioned that the NCS are active in All Party Parliamentary Groups (APPGs) and challenging policy makers. The BACP also do this kind of work e.g. they put in a thorough response to the latest NICE recommendations for depression. Both don’t seem to be that visible though, unless you follow links on newsletters directed at the membership rather than the public…
Someone wondered if the opposition parties have working groups on mental health and if so if we could get uACT into those working groups.
Paul and Gavin mentioned that the SHA (Socialist Health Alliance?) are meeting with Rosena Ali Kahn, the Shadow for Mental Health.
The general point that we need ‘allies in power’ within the NHS. And/or GPs. And/or politicians.
Freedom of Information requests to expose reality of MH services – long waiting lists, absence of support etc.
Capitalism/Neoliberalism/Keynesianism etc: The capitalist structures in which we live were pointed out as being problematic. In other words, following on from the previous heading, it is a problem in itself that we are seeking change through mechanisms such as Parliament which are inherently state capitalist structures if I understand what this contributor meant: ‘The problem is that in our ‘democracy’ solutions are sought through mechanisms that are themselves part of the state apparatuses that sustain the undisturbed reproduction of capital.’ As much as I understand (which probably isn’t that much) this problem I think we have to be clear about exactly how these problems relate to our campaign. We could lose people if it gets too theoretical, intellectual and academic. What do we want on the ground?
According to one contributor the current changes to develop Integrated Care Systems (ICS) in the NHS are driven by decisions made in the World Economic Forum (made up of economists and corporations). These ideas are pushed forward here by i.e. economists and corporations and ‘multiple stakeholders with an interest in such changes’.
The capitalist neoliberal system also makes accessing therapy or becoming a therapist a privileged undertaking (often) – this is key to the idea of ‘universal access’.
I think lots of people do not know the word ‘neoliberalism’. I think when talking about issues we need to be really careful not to assume understanding of that word or that most people are familiar with capital/labour/surplus value etc terminology. What do these things mean and in particular how does it relate to ‘universal Access to Counselling and psychoTherapy’?
One attendee suggested that the attack on ‘neoliberalism’ as a kind of bad capitalism implied that there was a good kind of capitalism. The attendee suggested that the problem is the ‘structural superfluity of much of the population, which is a capitalist problem’. Implicitly I think the attendee was saying we all have to smash capitalism – neoliberal or any other type of capitalism. Whilst that may be an ideal for some, I think going too far down this path leads us astray from the mission of universal access to counselling and psychotherapy. In a more humane society, of course there would be less need for therapy and ‘mental health’ support more generally, but we need to focus on what our needs are now? We don’t want to put people off from quite a specific goal by getting too intellectual?
One attendee suggested that the critique of mental health as less about the individual and more to do with ‘structural problems such as poverty, racism, misogyny’ would not resonate with many politicians – especially the ones in government! So any lobbying of politicians should be aimed at particular members in the opposition parties ‘more open to this point of view – and fewer with shares in Big Pharma and private HC’.
The influence of people like Herbert Spencer and Ayn Rand on Sajid Javid, the present Secretary of State for Health. It will take a lot to sway somebody like that to provide more and better mental healthcare…
One attendee pointed out how the ‘increasingly punitive social policy in criminal justice, housing, UC and deaths in custody’ are connected to mental health services. The attendee suggested that demonstrating the impact of the whole system (e.g. in those areas) on mental health would be a good strategy.
James’s comments about Keynes/Keynesianism were new to some attendees. Again, I think we need to be careful that if we drop ideas like this into dialogues we can’t assume prior knowledge and need to explain how it directly relates to uACT and its aims.
One attendee saw the group as they perceived it at the launch as ‘necessarily reformist’ whilst recognising a ‘very particular ideological position of the group about why things are the way they are’. I think this was in response to the contributor who was critical we weren’t allying ourselves with the international working class to bring down capitalism at the same time as campaigning for universal access to therapy.
IAPT-CBT and IAPT-therapy vs therapy therapy?: CBT has done a good job as promoting itself as the ‘answer’. And there are some who are anti-CBT. I don’t think CBT is the answer or the problem. And a lot of CBT practitioners would agree. I don’t think we want to lose therapists who identify with CBT so we need to tread carefully here if we want as much support as possible. One message I would like to be understood is that CBT is not different to or above therapy – it is, in fact, just one type of therapy, useful for some people some of the time, and completely alienating for some people some of the time. I think the idea of ‘personalizing’ therapy rather than idealising or demonising certain approaches is where I sit on this (Norcross and Cooper, 2021). Someone suggested a campaign to ‘push CBT in to the realms of education’. I think this person was pro-CBT. He was suggesting that CBT could be an educational subject in schools – a GCSE or A level. I would prefer an education in all the different approaches and critiques of all of them. Isn’t this something which is or could be covered in PCSHE? Someone less sympathetic to CBT worried about this idea embedding CBT even further into mainstream policies/provision (with implicitly less of everything else).
One attendee stated that ‘it’s not sufficiently recognised that NICE guideline development groups are packed with CBT lobby people’. I don’t know much about this but if it is true I do think needs to be called out. What I do know is that the BACP considered being allowed on to the IAPT advisory group — on a rotation with other therapy organisations — as a victorious event to be celebrated rather than one to be objected to as an insult.
I have titled this section IAPT-CBT and IAPT-therapy to acknowledge that some CBT practitioners do not recognise IAPT-CBT as proper CBT. Also, I think calling the other ‘approved’ therapies IAPT-therapies as opposed to any other kind of therapy clarifies our objections. It is not that we object to IAPT therapy per se – it is that we object to therapy therapy not being on the menu. For instance, Counselling for Depression (CfD) is not — at least theoretically – the same as person-centred therapy (PCT). I think it needs to be acknowledged that there are therapists doing work in the NHS and even IAPT who are sneaking in ‘therapy therapy’ even if, on paper, it is called CBT, or CfD or IPT.
Encroachment by other professions and paraprofessions: It was suggested that schools were offering pseudo-counselling via ‘pastoral support’ and it would be preferable if there were therapists in every school. Coincidentally, as I write this, Paul’s email from a therapist has come through saying that her contract to provide therapy for a Primary Care Network (PCN) has been ended due to the ‘Community Mental Health Framework and the privatisation through the alliance building of larger providers’. The primary care service have been ‘sold the idea that counselling can provided by a health coach’. Another example of encroachment by other professionals/paraprofessionals into ‘counselling’. It may seem obvious but the message that counsellors and psychotherapists are actually the most suitable practitioners to be delivering counselling and psychotherapy needs to be loud and clear.
Therapy in schools: apparently BACP have been campaigning for every school to have a therapist. I don’t know how successful or not this campaign has been. There was discussion about how poorly schools are resourced.
Medicalisation / Big Pharma / Big Money / Pathologisation / Government: the connection between these 5 phenomena was pointed out. Labelling cf. Drop the Disorder!. Medicating children with behavioural issues. The Big Pharma influence on government policies. MPs financially invested in ineffective and/or harmful psychiatric drugs will maybe struggle to see the case for less medication more relation…
Public knowledge / engaging the public: It was pointed out that the public know what they want even if policy makers and commissioner’s don’t. That is why those who can afford to go private and give up on the possibility of free provision. So many people have had positive experiences of therapy. Somehow we need to get their voices heard and their support for others to get what they have had. I think that a main aim for us is to bring about a situation in which everyone can access what is already available in the private sector (and to a limited extent via EAPs and insurance). The importance of engaging the public to say they want alternatives to medication and medical responses.
Conversely, someone thought people don’t understand what we do. I think a lot of people do understand (there are more representations of therapy on TV etc. than ever before) but some people probably could do with more info/clarifications.
Newspaper articles.
MediaTrust: an organisation which helps groups get their messages out to the media: https://mediatrust.org/
A mainstream documentary with James Davies and others? Yes – I think it’s about time for one of those. But not to get lost on YouTube somewhere but be on Horizon or something like that… Anybody know any documentary film-makers with good connections? Someone called ‘mimi’ wanted to have the speakers’ email / contact details because she knows mainstream documentary makers.
Direct actions: against Big Pharma – highlighting the connections between Big Pharma and ‘mental health’ care in the NHS and beyond.
Someone suggested contacting all the counsellors and psychotherapists and trainees to see if they want to get on board. Great idea! But I don’t know how feasible…
A need to boil down our many ideas into maybe 5 key messages.
Get information out about the state of our profession, a leaflet perhaps? Also aimed at the public so they know there are other options other than the one offered via GP’s.
‘Evidence-based’ interventions: and lack of evidence for evidence-based interventions! The unreliability of questionnaires such as PHQ-9. The link between these questionnaires and Pfizer. The potential ‘shaming’ of clients by questionnaires.
The wellbeing industry: how it was sold to us by government and big business.
Training/Education: It was suggested that the kind of issues we talked about should be a part of training. The political/economic aspects of therapy are a big and important part of therapy and aren’t part of the curriculum – certainly at BA/BSc/Dip/PGDip levels? Forewarned is forearmed?
Education and training needs a big overhaul.
Online/phone therapy: One contributor wondered if ‘the current need, and sometimes client demand for remote psychotherapy [contributes] to the neoliberal agenda and promote loss of relating? Are we sacrificing depth for something convenient or giving access to more?’ They are questions rather than statements. I think the transition to online/phone that so many of us have made (I don’t know how many) could be used to ‘uberise’ therapy by IAPT and other players but more positively it does make it a much more convenient activity for both clients and therapists. I don’t know how much, if at all, I will return to in-person therapy.
Diagnosis: One participant mentioned it being used as an excuse for bad behaviour. It can also instil hopelessness by suggesting my problem is innate, biological and beyond my own power to change. I am not sure if this is really our area – refer to Drop the Disorder!
‘Messy profession’: There is a lack of clarity around e.g. the difference between ‘counsellors’ and ‘psychotherapists’ (if any) – is CBT just one type of therapy or is it something entirely different and superior? More training costs more money — does it really produce better therapists? I think we need the campaign to not just be about access by people to counselling and psychotherapy but also access for people to become counsellors and psychotherapists. So we need to set a bar but it shouldn’t be a bar to keep people out. In that sense, I can see the aim of SCoPEd – to attempt some kind of clarification – but why I am against it is because, to my mind, it manages both to over-simplify and over-complicate at the same time! Quite a feat!
IAPT/NICE/NHS: recognised as being central to the problems we are facing. What I call the IAPT/NICE/NHS conglomerate. This is a battle worth fighting but simultaneously I agree there are other fronts to fight on e.g. community-based, third sector, social services rather than health services? It always strikes me as a slightly difficult challenge to convince a medical service they should not be conforming to a medical model… maybe therapy in the NHS is the wrong place for it to be?
The view that IAPT is a ‘failing service’ was articulated in the chat room. As well as annoyance that they actively try to shut down person-centred services ‘under the guise of them preventing them “meeting their targets”’.
One IAPT counsellor (they do exist!) reported that the waiting list for ‘Counselling for Depression’ in their district was over a year! This is not universal access and it is not taking the problems of those requesting counselling seriously.
The latest NICE Adult Depression Guideline.
It’s not sufficiently recognised that NICE guideline development groups are packed with CBT lobby people.
GPs as a potential ally in trying to provide non-IAPT therapy as they might be as disappointed in it as we are? Especially re: lack of patient choice etc?. Although some GPs will unsurprisingly support medical models of ‘mental illness’ others won’t – they are the potential allies.
The high drop-out rates of IAPT. Some contributors talking about IAPT’s version of CBT. I think this is an important distinction. There’s CBT then there’s CBT as delivered by IAPT. Even Windy Dryden (a central figure re: CBT in the UK) has joked IAPT stands for ‘It Ain’t Proper Therapy’. Maybe we could get him to a future event?
What can counsellors and psychotherapists already within IAPT do? One attendee said she was the only ‘counsellor for depression’ in her IAPT service. How can counsellors and psychotherapists working in IAPT respond to the dominance by CBT etc?
Someone suggested we need to work ‘with as well as against’ current IAPT practitioners ‘to broaden the service rather than chuck out and replace’. There are some good practitioners within IAPT and potential allies.
Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) are responsible for pouring money into IAPT services and are also allowing the takeover of GP surgeries by a US-based conglomerate (not named?).
Someone who worked in an IAPT service said that only those who think in a certain way (not like people at the launch) get promoted into management. Their worldview becomes institutionalised and it becomes very hard to change/break.
Within IAPT: more client input, a choice given for Zoom telephone or face to face, length of sessions, relational therapy or structured CBT and so on.
Allegedly (i.e. could we get people to confirm this?) IAPT are often not allowing people to return to therapy so they don’t show up on stats as not cured in 6 sessions.
Meanwhile ‘the government in their latest 10-year forward plan for the NHS claim IAPT to be world-class’.
Community Mental Health Framework is being rolled out so according to one attendee this makes ‘collective action urgent’: https://www.england.nhs.uk/publication/the-community-mental-health-framework-for-adults-and-older-adults/
Value of phone and video therapy: whilst it might be cheaper to provide someone suggested that it does provide valuable relational therapy – as a practitioner who has gone completely online./phone now I agree! – he said it can’t be dismissed as a ‘neoliberal cost-cutting exercise’. I agree with that sentiment but it might be used as an excuse to cut in-person therapy even if that’s what practitioners and clients want to provide and have provided. There are lots of advantages to online/phone therapy and since March 2020 I think it is here to stay, like it or not.
Therapy Trainings: suggestion that the political dimensions and contexts of therapy should be part of trainings.
Research: someone suggested ‘we need to build a research base on the true long-term gains made through relational therapies’ as an ‘antidote to “evidence based” approaches’. I think there is a space for this. There is a lot of evidence to support therapies not ‘approved’ by IAPT etc. The Great Psychotherapy Debate: The Evidence for What Makes Psychotherapy Work (Wampold & Imel, 2015) I think has more than enough up to 2015 – and for the evidence supporting personalising therapy – which, to my mind, is a way of pushing for different types of therapy to be available to people – I have already mentioned (Norcross & Cooper, 2021).
There are quite a few practitioners in IAPT and beyond who have access to data and outcomes which can be shared to make the case for and against different types of provision.
Financial Case: that better therapy could be provided for less money (vs IAPT etc) is an incentive which might have some influence. I think this came from something James said. This maybe ties in with ‘Research’ above. If we don’t make this point an early rebuttal might be ‘well, what you’re saying is all very well but we can’t afford it’.
Soul/Anthroposophy/Transpersonal: One attendee was fond of Anthroposophy as an approach that recognised the importance of ‘soul’. I don’t know a lot about Rudolf Steiner / Anthroposophy but in the attendee’s contribution I recognised the mainstream dismissal of a soul/spirit dimension in therapy. I am happier with the term ‘transpersonal’ and these approaches are not for everyone but their complete exclusion from the NHS etc also excludes people who might want this kind of approach – notwithstanding ‘mindfulness’ getting in the back door on the back of ‘CBT’.
Private Practice: one practitioner who has worked in the NHS and other organisational contexts stated that private practice was the ‘only environment’ in which she can ‘presently… work as needed and driven by clients’. This is the case for so many therapists – we provide what most people (practitioners and public) perceive as therapy in the private sector. What we want is people to be able to access that – either as it is via subsidisation – or if that is not possible via the public and third sectors (with fair pay and conditions).
Pay and conditions: this was mentioned. It is obviously important and when working out the ‘Financial Case’ what practitioners need to be paid is obviously part of that calculation. I don’t think we should support the higher salaries of CBT practitioners and lower salaries of both psychotherapists and counsellors in the NHS as they stand. But we could refer people on to the PCU for issues around the fine detail of pay and conditions.
Pedagogical meetings: Someone suggested ‘pedagogical meetings’ which weren’t so word-based. I don’t really know what they are referring to – maybe Richard House knows?
Uberisation of therapy: Surviving Work, Liz Cotton etc.
BACP/UKCP/NCS etc: our membership bodies actually helping us? There are allies in there – for instance I went to an online meeting about the BACP’s submission re: the new NICE depression guideline – there were some good people on that and doing good work in that direction. And they might help us with the media with connections they already have? But, others within the MBs might be unsympathetic cf. SCoPEd (Scope of Practice and Education) – ‘our professional bodies are invested in maintaining the status quo’? One attendee had a ‘long and difficult experience of challenging one professional body’ (unnamed). One NCS member said that NCS was on board with what we were saying in the meeting. There was a general feeling that the NCS might be more sympathetic to our positions than the BACP ?
Local groups: quite a few people expressed the wish to be put in touch with others in their locality e.g. South Wales etc. Anne Lee of the PCU suggested those interested join the PCU as the PCU is working on setting up regional/local groups for the PCU.
Someone suggested ‘sociocracy’ (?) as a model for this local group organising to help us all work together without a few people having to do huge amounts of work.
Local groups could present to GP practices, schools (headteachers/pastoral care/SENCos) or other relevant organisations. This would present the human face of the movement whilst presenting the research and challenging the status quo.
Possible re-naming: WeAct, Re-Act i.e. relational – personally I think that’s too narrow – and whilst I understand our emphasis is on access to relational therapy I wouldn’t want to entirely exclude people (practitioners and public) who prefer ‘instrumental’ therapies. This is the pluralist in me – both/and versus either/or.
Voluntary/unpaid work: The model in which charities do not include pay for therapists in their funding bids needs to change – the point that it is not a viable business model needs to be stated loud and clear. This, however, is one of the main messages of CTUK so on that front I just think our support for this aim via CTUK needs to be made explicit.
Some attendees suggested that trainees should also be paid. I think this is more arguable. For instance although I don’t really like comparing therapists to medical practitioners it does provide some kind of benchmark. My understanding is nurses are not paid while they are training so to think ourselves above their standing doesn’t sit right with me. But there is an apprenticeship scheme where you are paid whilst training as long as you promise x years of service. Often, therapists continue in their placements after they qualify and maybe this tendency could be formalised with the idea of paid ‘apprenticeships’. The PCU has a trainee group to which these kinds of questions/aims might be better directed.
Funding for the campaign: Someone wondered if any fundraising events had been organised to promote the campaign (on social media etc I suppose?). If we get interesting/known speakers for future events even with donation-only events I think we would make a bit of money (we can ask Onlinevents how much donation only events make on average).
Possible future events: Richard Layard and David Clark in a debate / discussion? That particular suggestion could backfire? But, on the other hand, could get more people along and those who need to hear the arguments… not necessarily those two but the idea of debate / discussion of the people who don’t seem to be hearing us… ?
Windy Dryden?
Philippa Perry?
Jordan Dunbar?
A warning from someone: ‘Campaigns like this can become hectoring and abstract, let’s be creative, open and constructive’.
Books and other resources recommended by attendees:
Peter Sedgwick – Psychopolitics (1982).
James Davies – Sedated – of course!
Drop the Disorder! (both a book and group).
The Happiness Industry – William Davies (any relation?).
Medicine Under Capitalism’ – Vicente Navarro (1979)
The master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house. – Audre Lorde (1979)
Yannis Varoufakis – for writings on neoliberalism.
A Short History of Neoliberalism – David Harvey
Capitalist Realism – Mark Fisher
Satish Kumar
The Industrialisation of Care – Rosemary Rizq and Catherine Jackson (eds)
Surviving Work / Liz Cotton
We Own It: https://weownit.org.uk/
Keep Our NHS Public: https://keepournhspublic.com/
Psychotherapy and Counselling Union: www.psychotherapyandcounsellingunion.co.uk
Your NHS Needs You: https://www.yournhsneedsyou.com/
Free, Equal and Mutual: Rebalancing Society for the Common Good – Martin Large and Steve Briault (eds.): a centenary anthology that draws on Rudolf Steiner’s vision for a free, equal and mutual society, a threefold commonwealth. 20 cutting edge articles by 13 contributors show how the social threefold social order offers practical alternatives to the prevailing neo-liberal social order https://www.hawthornpress.com/books/changemaking/social-ecology-change/free-equal-and-mutual/
The Politics of Trauma – Staci K Haines
Research and links to literature on Arts for Health, as a cooperative of Therapists and Counsellors : https://www.aata-uk.org/resources
The Red Clinic: https://www.theredclinic.co.uk/
Norcross, J.C & Cooper, M. (2021). Personalizing Psychotherapy: Assessing and Accomodating Patient Preferences. Washington: American Psychological Association.
Wampold, B.E. & Imel, Z.E. (2015). The Great Psychotherapy Debate: The Evidence for What Makes Therapy Work, 2nd Edn. Hove: Routledge.
uACT 