Is the urging back to our offices in any way altruistic?

I am a bureaucrat, thus my days are usually spent in an office, in a town centre location. I go for a walk at lunchtime every day, mostly to get my 10,000 steps a day, but occasionally to pick up the odd thing that I need - a loaf of bread, perhaps, or a birthday card, or a sandwich. At least, I did, until five months ago. I haven’t been back to my office since.

It has been an interesting time. Without the need to catch a community bus at about 7.45 every morning, I can sleep in a little and still start work at 8.30, and I can finish at 5 and make dinner, leaving time for an after dinner stroll around my village. I save a sizeable chunk by not having to commute, about 10% of my gross salary, some of which is spent on slightly higher utility bills, and extra groceries.

I can, if I prefer, work different patterns, depending on what I’m doing, or can break up the day into chunks, working say a four hour shift in the morning, taking a long lunch break, and working another four hour shift in the afternoon, if that suits. Think of it as an extended version of flexible working hours - my employer gets my time when I’m more motivated to work and I am thus, theoretically, more productive.

Richard Littlejohn and a bunch of other people whose views can usually be categorised as right-wing, believe that I should be “back at work”. Admittedly, most of us in the despised public sector never actually got furloughed - one of those nice tax officers helping people with their claims under the Job Retention Scheme and the Self-Employed Income Support Scheme is me, for example. His assumption, that if you’re not in the office, you’re not working, is pretty bloody offensive, if you ask me.

Of course, there are casualties. All of those outlets which exist to service office workers may well not survive and those that do will have to adjust. On the other hand, a lot of people working in the service sector can’t afford to live in, or even near, the inner city, and thus ironically are commuting to follow those working there. Potentially, that means that I might use a barber in Stowmarket or Needham Market instead of in Ipswich, or buy a sandwich there. Somebody will still need to cut my hair, or make my sandwich, but they won’t be commuting either and they can either reduce their prices to reflect their reduced overheads, or maintain prices and make greater profits.

And, if your livelihood depends on commercial property, you might have a bit of a problem. On the other hand, if you’re renting out office space by the hour, day or week, like WeWorks (for example), you might have more opportunities for business. Housing costs will be reduced if you really don’t need to live in expensive urban areas, and work-life balance is likely to be enhanced for many.

It isn’t a utopia. For some people, working from home is challenging. Creating a clear division between work and home is difficult if both are located in exactly the same space. Being in the same place as your loved ones all of the time can have an impact on relationships - we all need some personal space and time sometimes - and for those of whom see work as an escape from an otherwise dull or depressing life, the loss of that escape can lead to mental health issues.

Some will prefer the office existence, others will be happy to go in two or three days a week, varying on their personal circumstances. What it does offer is freedom and choice, two things that right-wing commentators are usually rather keen on. Clearly, it wasn’t the sort of choice and freedom they had in mind. Or, perhaps, the idea of freedom and choice was intended for them alone.

But, ultimately, a key decider of our working future is what is profitable or advantageous to our employers. If they see an advantage to having more staff working from home, be it in terms of reduced costs or higher productivity, they’ll probably encourage it, and all of the whining from the likes of Richard Littlejohn will have absolutely no effect.