We know that for a country, in the future, the forces of global competition and technological change mean that we can only compete on the basis of skill and ability, not low wages. He continued by arguing that we need to separate very clearly those who cannot work, who need security and protection and must have it, and those who can work but at present don’t. We must try to help them off a life on benefit and into productive work (speech, 8 June 2001). It is extremely difficult for governments to simply ‘reverse’ existing welfare provision, especially with welfare services that are based on the notion of social rights. For example, Offe (1984, p. 264) thought that ‘state institutions which assign legal entitlements to citizens become relatively “rigid” or even
‘irreversible’. New Labour has not attempted to reverse these rights in any simple way, but rather has redefined them by arguing that they must be attached to obligations or ‘responsibilities’. This attachment of obligations to rights is a key component of New Labour’s ideology, and is a crucial means for changing the character of social entitlements without abolishing them. One ideological basis for this approach is ‘communitarian’ arguments. Etzioni (1995) presents an
essentially moral argument in favour of attaching responsibilities to rights in order to arrest the perceived social malaise afflicting advanced countries, and the USA in particular. In his view, certain rights could and should be circumscribed or amended in order to fight crime or deal with public health or safety issues.
我们知道，一个国家，在未来，全球竞争和技术变革意味着力量，我们只能对技能和能力的基础上竞争，工资不低。他继续说，我们需要分开很清楚那些不能工作，谁需要安全和保护，必须有它，和那些可以工作，但现在不了。我们必须尽力帮助他们生活在利益和为生产性的工作（语音，8六月2001）。这是政府只是“反向”现有的福利非常困难，尤其是与福利服务为基础的社会权利的概念。例如，提供（1984，p. 264）认为，“国家机构指定的法律权利的公民变得比较“刚性”甚至
“不可逆”。新工党并没有试图在任何简单的方式扭转这些权利，而是重新定义了他们的主张，他们必须附义务或责任”。此附件的义务，权利是新工党的意识形态的一个重要组成部分，并没有废除他们改变社会福利性质的重要手段。这一思想基础的方法是“共产主义”的争论。Etzioni（1995）提出了一种
根本的道德争论的附加责任的权利以阻止社会不适困扰发达国家的青睐，和美国的特别。在他看来，某些权利可以而且应该或修订，以打击犯罪和应对公共健康或安全问题的局限性。
