To be clear from the start: the idea of banning work from home is not only stupid and not the least bit unwise, but a spectacular, fully intellectual car accident with a stupid hat.
And the fact that this idea is being seriously flirted with in political circles tells you everything you need to know about how out of control this country’s Westminster bubble has become.
If you’ve read my scrawls on the subject over the last decade, such as “Why a Forced Return to the Office Is a Step Back for Business” and “Body, Bum, Cost Money, Can You Work Virtually,” then you know that I’m not exactly shy about waving the flag for flexibility. I argued that work is not a place; It’s a thing you do. Deadlines don’t matter when it comes to subway strikes. Creativity doesn’t thrive because you have a corner desk with a view of Canary Wharf. Pencils don’t write better in the city.
And yet here in 2026 we see the same fossils who championed touchdown desks as if they were a breakthrough in human civilization, the same old chestnuts about presenteeism, “office culture” and “We need to see people at their desks!” roll out. – as if productivity were directly proportional to proximity to a swivel chair.
What makes this repetition of absurdity particularly galling is the political context. The current political mood suggests that Nigel Farage could well become the next Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. Now, I’m not here to incite a partisan riot, I’m here to spout nonsense wherever it appears, regardless of which side of the aisle it’s draped on. And when someone at the top of the country calls working from home something that should be banned, you have to wonder if, you know, they’ve ever worked.
If your understanding of remote working is limited to the glimpse you catch when the BBC points out a home office with a bobblehead on the shelf, then you might think that working from home is a treat. A luxury. A mild form of leisure. But anyone who has ever managed teams through screens, as I wrote about in “Managing Teams from a Small Screen,” will tell you that aligning global calendars, troubleshooting glitches, making video calls while your dog thinks he’s invited, and delivering results that matter is not remotely relaxing.
One of the clearest statements I’ve read on this came from Mark Dixon, the founder of Regus, yes, the titan of the flexible workplace, who has a vested interest in having desks everywhere and yet is unequivocally clear that banning remote work is idiotic. His comments in an interview with The Times broke through the usual fog of clichés: Flexibility is not the enemy of collaboration; it is its enabler. People don’t want to be forced back into a desk dungeon five days a week; They want meaningful connection on their terms. If that means meeting in person to brainstorm ideas and spending the rest of the week where you can work best, then that’s great. If it means satellite offices are closer to where people live, that’s great. But ban WFH entirely? Only someone with a pathological penchant for sepia-toned office fantasies could confirm this.
Let’s explain why this is important beyond the tedium of turf wars between managers and to express my good faith on the subject. Capital Business Media – owner of Daily Sparkz – has doubled its revenue in three years without a single employee being in the same “office” as their colleagues.
First: productivity. The best evidence we have from countless companies large and small is that production does not collapse when people work from home. The idea that remote work equals lounging is a myth that lazy commentators cling to because it’s a convenient extension of their own nostalgia for subway commutes that smacks faintly of regret.
Second: talent. The modern workforce is not static; It doesn’t orbit offices like electrons do around a corporate core. People value flexibility, and talent moves where they find it. Companies that adhere to the motto “You must be here 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., no exceptions” will not become magnets for the best people; They become boarding houses for the most docile. If banning WFH becomes law, companies will reward political intervention with a choice: offshore work, automate, or collapse due to their own inertia.
Third: the economy. There is a pernicious assumption among some policymakers that having an office full of committees equals economic vitality. But let’s face it: The office economy is a facade propped up by overpriced coffee, sandwich chains with dubious pension plans, and pastry carts wheeled out by a desire to be busier than us. Real economic value comes from effective, sustainable work, whether in a studio in Sussex, an apartment in Glasgow or an airport lounge in Zurich during a layover.
Far from being just a ridiculous benefit, remote work is an economic force multiplier. It reduces carbon emissions from commuting, eases pressure on housing markets in overheated urban centers, and distributes purchasing power geographically. It is not a threat to society; it is a development of that.
To be clear: a WFH ban isn’t just about where people sit. It’s about control. It’s about a cultural insistence on viewing busyness as a virtue rather than effectiveness. It’s about politicians yearning for a world they half-remember through the cinematic lens of early 2000s “office culture” pamphlets.
My suggestion? If someone is seriously proposing a ban on home working, we should ask them: “Have you ever delivered a full quarterly business report over Zoom? Have you ever coordinated a multinational project without ever setting foot in an office? Have you ever actually judged work based on results rather than looks?”
Until they can answer “yes,” I would be cautious about taking their advice about the future of work seriously.
Because whatever happens next in Westminster, we must not relegate the world of work to a bunker called the office. That’s not progress. This is nostalgia disguised as politics. And at a time when adaptability is a competitive advantage, banning home working is not only backwards, it’s insane.
Read more:
Banning WFH is insane, and so are the politicians who are incapable of enacting it
