The New Labour government's (NLG) landslide victory in the 1997 general election opened a new chapter for the British welfare state. Unlike previous Labour governments, which had emphasised collective provision and wealth redistribution, the NLG attaches greater importance to the private market as an effective mechanism not only for wealth creation but also for welfare delivery. Also, the NLG stresses the distribution of opportunity through education and training rather than the redistribution of wealth through, for instance, raising benefit rates. Work, therefore, has been promoted as a means to tackle poverty and to improve the life quality of the poor. Against this background, the NLG has sought to reform the social security system based on welfare-to-work programmes aimed at enhancing the employability of unemployed people. In addition, ‘work’ has been considered as a means to enhance a person's self-esteem and life satisfaction. Therefore, a moral foundation has been laid to justify the state's control over the behaviour of claimants. One issue central to the debate about ‘welfare to work’ is ‘compulsion’. Deacon (1997, p 35) has asked, ‘Is it reasonable to withhold benefits from those who refuse to participate in such measures, and, if so, how should such a sanction be imposed and maintained?’ This chapter attempts to examine the impact of New Labour's welfare initiatives on the dignity of the UK's unemployed persons.

The New Labour government's policies towards unemployment

The New Labour government is proud of its economic achievements. From the 1980s to the early 1990s, the UK experienced poor economic performance with an unemployment rate which at times exceeded 10%. Thereafter the economy gradually recovered. In August 2004 the unemployment rate in the UK was only 4.8% (1.44 million unemployed workers), while the labour participation rate was 74.6%, one of the highest among European countries (Human Resource Management, 2004). Against these economic achievements, Gordon Brown, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, asserted at the Labour Party conference in 2004: