Embedded Files
Work From Home: Can It Become The New Normal Again?
Work From Home: Can It Become The New Normal Again?
By Luke Brandon - 29/06/2020
By Luke Brandon - 29/06/2020
The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has become an era defining event. Like a wildfire, the forest of human civilisation has been severely damaged. Our health, social life and economy have all been assaulted by the inferno. However, even before the flames have been fully extinguished, new opportunities are arising. One that cannot be ignored is the success of many companies to get their employees to work from home. Could this sudden shift in behaviour cement itself in the economy of the future?
The old assumption was that to work productively you needed to be in a company office, often involving long commutes for a shift in an open plan glass and steel box full of distractions. Meetings, it was thought, should be conducted in one room.
Coronavirus has changed all that. Video conferencing services such as Zoom and Teams have overcome the problems of having a workforce diffused across the country. Working from home has reduced the upkeep costs of lighting and heating office space and dampened pressures on capacity of public transport and roads. This has in turn brought down the emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases. Indeed, energy demand across the entire UK economy has fallen by as much as 15% during lockdown. This is predicted to lead to a fall in CO2 emissions of 8% this year.
The question that needs now to be asked: does working from home also increase wellbeing and productivity? If it does then that opens the door for companies to allow employees to work from home at least some of the time. It has some attractive rewards for all. A reduction in upkeep costs for companies, reduced transport costs for employees, higher air quality and lower greenhouse emissions. Given that around 43% of the workforce is currently working from home, the positive effects of a permanent shift to home working could be vast.
Yet with every benefit to such a change, comes the potential of negative side effects. First and foremost would be the psychological impact of your home becoming your office, stuck in one place, with limited social interaction with colleagues. In addition, having clearly defined spaces for work and recreation have benefits of their own and workplaces can even provide sanctuary for those with more troubled domestic environments. Make your employees work from home too much then, and any gains in wellbeing and productivity could be wiped out.
In addition, what gains will there be for the economic ecosystems that have grown up around the offices in our towns and cities? Cleaner air maybe, but for public transport there will be a loss of revenue. For the cafes, coffee shops and fast food outlets, a loss of custom. For construction companies perhaps a loss of business as demand for office space falls. And for HM Treasury, a potential fall in tax revenue as habits change.
The pandemic has created enormous pressures on society and the economy but it has also provided a glimpse into long term solutions for some of the great challenges of our time, not least how we as a nation can live and work in a healthier, more sustainable way. Working from home could provide permanent benefits for our office dwelling workforce, their employers and the environment. With all opportunities there comes risk. Finding the right balance between working in an office in the city and working in an office at home in the post-pandemic economy will enable businesses to reap the rewards of a healthier, happier workforce, determining the way many of us work for decades to come.
In Defence of Foreign Aid
In Defence of Foreign Aid
By Robert Ogden - 16/06/2020
By Robert Ogden - 16/06/2020
Note: This article was written before the announcement made on 16 June 2020 to absorb the Department for International Development into the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
Foreign aid has long been a topic of controversy. Its opponents often criticise it for diverting taxpayers' money from the public services that benefit the British people, and sometimes it is used as polemic to stir up isolationist sentiment by pointing at the seeming injustice of frittering money overseas.
On the other hand, there are those who criticise the foreign aid budget, despite Britain having spent the significant amount of £15.2 billion on foreign aid in 2019, as being a measly amount, and that Britain should make significant reparations for its historical impact around the world.
Both of these positions are prevalent in British political discourse, therefore the case must be made for foreign aid, which is both sensible from a state investment view, and benevolent in its ethics.
The UK is currently committed by law to spending 0.7% of Gross National Income (GNI) on foreign aid, in line with the United Nations (UN) contribution target set on developed economies. This budget is mostly managed by the Department for International Development (DfID). 15% of British foreign aid is spent on humanitarian aid, with contributions to various crises where relief for human suffering can be rapidly provided. This aspect is arguably the least controversial area of our foreign aid expenditure. However, 85% of the aid budget is spent on longer term projects. Here, the money tends to do an extraordinary amount of good, but this isn’t as evident to the British public who are more accustomed to short-termist media portrayals of disaster relief. The exposure of mismanagement, projects with questionable benefits, and corruption, have tarnished the reputation of foreign aid. However, with necessary structural changes, and a fresh strategic outlook, Britain can achieve much more impactful outcomes, and with it foster a greater public appreciation for the role of foreign aid in stabilising our world, and protecting Britain and home from problems arising overseas.
A brief manifesto for sensible aid:
1. Britain’s foreign aid budget must be decoupled from the figure of 0.7% GNI. It is an arbitrary figure, dependent on yearly economic performance, and stops DfID from supplying foreign aid with the certainty of a consistent budget. This does not necessarily mean that the foreign aid budget should be reduced in absolute terms, but it does ensure that accountability for the budget is secured.
2. DfID should be abolished, and its foreign aid responsibilities given to the Foreign Office. This would increase the effectiveness of aid as a tool of British foreign policy, and allow it to be aligned with wider British foreign policy.
3. UK aid in the form of long term investment should in some cases aim to provide positive returns to the treasury, and foster trade for mutual economic development.
4. A larger, long term project such as hospital ships, in conjunction with the Ministry of Defence, would allow Britain to project its medical expertise to numerous locations.
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse