Imagine you’d had an extra day off work today. What would you have done? Spent more time with friends or family? Been to visit someone who needs help at home? Taken the kids to the park? Sat down and, finally, just relaxed in front of the TV?

It might sound fanciful but these issues are at the heart of a problem that’s afflicting our society: many of us work too much. How often do you get to the end of a week feeling exhausted? And how deeply do you dread the long week stretching ahead of you when you go to bed on a Sunday night?

Rutger Bregman: ‘We could cut the working week by a third’ Read more

Though some have had working hours reduced a little, society as a whole simply isn’t benefiting from the progress of the last 100 years. This injustice is compounded when you consider that women entering the workforce added hugely to the aggregate amount of hours. British workers spend more hours toiling than almost all of our northern European counterparts. More than 70 years after Keynes predicted we would be working 15-hour weeks we are still slaving away, and all this with average real wages stagnating in recent years.

The nature of work is changing, too – with automation set to replace many jobs, and the gig economy meaning that many people can’t find enough work, while others have far too much. With even the government itself commissioning a major review of the changing world of work, it’s clear that big changes are on their way and the time for big ideas is now.

There are plenty of reasons to argue for extra time off and more flexible working arrangements. For a start, there is strong evidence it makes people happier and healthier – giving them more time to do what they love, while reducing stress levels. With work increasingly permeating all aspects of our lives, through our phones and computers, it would give us more space for ourselves and, crucially, more time to look after people who need care.

A shorter working week would also break down inequalities between women and men, as paid work would be shared more equally between them, and men could take on their fair share of unpaid work at home. A more personally sustainable working week would also be likely to reduce our carbon emissions – evidence shows that countries which work fewer hours have a smaller environmental footprint.

There would be economic benefits, too. For starters, there could well be a productivity boost – and the positive impact on health would be a cost-saver. And, crucially, redistributing work from the 6 million of us in Britain working more than 45 hours a week to the more than 1.5 million who are out of work would share prosperity and start to tackle the costs associated with unemployment.

The Green party might be the first political party to propose fewer working hours through, for example, a three-day weekend, but we are far from alone in thinking it’s a good idea. Amazon started experimenting with a four-day week last year and Japan’s Uniqlo started testing it out in 2015. The Google CEO, Larry Page, has also said that he doesn’t see why everyone needs to work full time any more.

Of course, some Google employees can afford to earn a day’s less salary, but the simple fact is that most people can’t. That’s why at the core of any proposal to reduce the working week must be two principles. First, wages must go up correspondingly to ensure no one loses out. In its report on decreasing the number of hours worked per week, the New Economic Foundation suggests that state and employers should share the cost – with additional state support and a gradual process, so that productivity increases could be matched by increased hourly wages.

Douglas Coupland: 'The nine to five is barbaric' Read more

Second, the reduced hours worked by some must be redistributed to others. Low pay and underemployment blight Britain – and a successful project to reduce workloads for the overworked will only be achieved if it is twinned with tackling those problems.

It is worth remembering that history is littered with the political and economic establishment dismissing radical ideas like this out of hand. The two-day weekend, statutory sick pay, maternity and paternity pay are all hard-won rights – they weren’t inevitable. A glance back at the Tories’ reaction to the idea of a minimum wage in the 90s should remind us that regressive forces dismissing an idea is no obstacle to it quickly becoming mainstream.

In this context, the response of people such as Tim Montgomerie is inevitable. Daring to ask what our economy is actually for, and whom it is meant to serve, is a revolutionary act and the forces of conservatism don’t like it.

But equally, no one is pretending that a big policy like this could be introduced tomorrow – there is plenty more work to do in developing it. But there are simple steps we could be taking now. For example, developing a right to compress contracted hours into four days a week, something those with parenting responsibilities are already finding offers a good way to help balance and share commitments. Or it may be prudent to begin by working with businesses to offer an extra day off a month, as some companies already do.

But what’s absolutely clear to us is that we need to redefine our relationship with work and start to build an economy in which the focus moves away from “living to work” towards more individual choice, more flexibility and more opportunities to live life to the fullest.