The WFH ban is insane, and the politicians are out of touch enough to approve that too
Let’s get something straight from the start: The idea of banning working from home is not just insulting, not a bit of advice, but an amazing car wreck, full of genius in a silly hat.
And the fact that this idea is being played with love in political circles tells you all you need to know about what a Westminster bubble this country has become.
If you’ve been reading my articles on this subject for the past ten years, such as Why forcing you to go back to the office is a step backwards for business and bodies, bums, it costs money, you can go virtual, then you’ll know that I’ve never been shy about waving the flag for flexibility. I have argued that work is not a place; it’s something you do. Deadline doesn’t care about Tube strikes. Creativity thrives because you have a corner desk with a view of Canary Wharf. Pencils don’t write better in the City.
And yet here we are, in 2026, watching the same remnants who championed touch desks as a success in human civilization spouting old chestnuts about consulting, ‘office culture’, and “We should see people at their desks!” – as if productivity is directly proportional to being close to the revolving chair.
What makes this repetition of nonsense especially angry is the political context. Current political musings suggest that Nigel Farage could be the next Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. Now, I’m not here to start a group riot, but I’m here to call out nonsense wherever it grows, regardless of which side of the aisle it’s focused on. And when someone who is put in a position to lead the country describes working from home as something that should be banned, you have to ask yourself if you’ve ever worked, you know.
If your understanding of remote working is limited to the passing comments you get when the BBC goes to the home office with a bobble head on the shelf, then yes, you may think working from home is indulgence. Comfort. A gentle way to have fun. But as anyone who has really managed teams with screens, as I wrote in Managing your team with a small screen, will tell you, there is nothing comfortable about aligning world calendars, training by using mistakes, making video calls while your dog thinks they are invited, and delivering important results.
One of the most eloquent comments I’ve read on this is from Mark Dixon, founder of Regus, yes, the titan of the flexible workspace with interest given the ubiquitous desks, but it’s unequivocally clear that banning remote working is stupid. His comments, in an interview with The Times, pierced the usual fog of clichés: flexibility is not the enemy of cooperation; is its maker. People don’t want to be forced back into a desk hole five days a week; they want meaningful communication on their terms. If that means meeting in person to get ideas and spend an entire week where they can work best, great. If it means that satellite offices are close to where people live, they are smart. But banning WFH altogether? Someone with a pathological love of sepia-tinted office fantasy can back that up.
Let’s explain why this is important beyond the wars of the managers, and put my true points on this topic Capital Business Media – the owners of Business Matters – doubled the profit in three years without a single employee in the same ‘office’ as their colleagues.
First: productivity. The best evidence we have, from many businesses large and small, is that productivity does not fall when people work from home. The idea that remote work is like loafing is a myth that lazy pundits cling to because it’s the perfect continuation of their desire to commute to work on the Tube trains that stinks of regret.
Second: talent. Modern workers are stagnant; it does not revolve around offices like electrons around the nucleus of a business. People prioritize flexibility, and talent moves where they can find it. Companies that adhere to “You have to be here 9–5, no exceptions” are not the best people magnets; they became dwelling houses for those who were most obedient. If the WFH ban becomes law, businesses will reward political interference with a choice: move work abroad, automate, or collapse under their own inertia.
Third: the economy. There is a misconception among some policy makers that a bureaucratic office equals economic vitality. But let’s face it, the office economy is a front-end supported by overpriced coffee, sandwich chains with dubious pension plans, and cake carts driven by a desire to feel busier than we are. Real economic value is created by successful, stable work, whether it’s done in a studio in Sussex, a flat in Glasgow, or an airport lounge in Zurich during downtime.
Rather than being an anomaly, telecommuting is a multiplier of economic power. It reduces carbon emissions from travel, eases pressure on housing markets in overheated urban areas, and distributes energy use geographically. It is not a threat to society; it is your evolution.
So let’s be clear: preventing WFH is not just about where people live. It’s about control. It’s about the cultural emphasis on seeing busyness as virtue rather than efficiency. It’s about an aspiring politician who vaguely remembers the movie “office culture” brochures from the early 2000s.
My suggestion? If someone is seriously proposing a ban on working from home, we should ask them this: “Have you ever delivered a quarterly business review via Zoom? Have you ever coordinated an international project without stepping foot in the office? Have you ever evaluated work on results instead of looks?”
Until they can answer yes, I would be wary of taking their advice about the future of work seriously.
Because whatever happens next in Westminster, let’s not send the world of work to a basement called an office. That is not progress. That’s nostalgia dressed up as policy. And in an era where flexibility is a competitive advantage, banning working from home isn’t just backwards, it’s insane.
Read more:
The WFH ban is insane, and the politicians are out of touch enough to approve that too
