RESUMO
The Covid-19 pandemic has seen emerging debate about a possible shift in 'anti-welfare commonsense' i.e. the orthodoxy previously described in this journal as solidifying negative public attitudes towards 'welfare'. While a shift in attitudes might be ascribed to the circumstances of the crisis it would still be remarkable for such a strongly established orthodoxy to have changed quite so rapidly. It is appropriate, therefore, to reflect on whether the 'anti-welfare' orthodoxy was in fact as unequivocal as claimed? To address this question, challenges to the established orthodoxy that were emerging pre-pandemic are examined along with the most recently available survey data. This leads to discussion of broader issues relating to understanding attitudes: methodology; 'messiness' and ambivalence of attitudes; attitudes and constructions of deservingness; and following or leading opinion. It is argued that the 'anti-welfare' orthodoxy has always been far more equivocal than claimed, with consequent implications for anti-poverty action and re-setting debate.
