Labour new law giving right to assets for cohabiting couples
Discussion
It would be modelled on similar schemes in Ireland, New Zealand and Scotland, where partners have rights to 'equal shares' of goods and property and can make a claim for short-term financial support against their ex.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/lifestyle/relationships/...
All I would say is beware of unintended consequences here as I know of a number of affluent men who do not marry as they do not want to lose half their assets (or more) , or be left with paying spousal support. Change the law and they may stop cohabiting as well.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/lifestyle/relationships/...
All I would say is beware of unintended consequences here as I know of a number of affluent men who do not marry as they do not want to lose half their assets (or more) , or be left with paying spousal support. Change the law and they may stop cohabiting as well.
I think that on balance this would be a good thing.
We've kind of destroyed marriage for whatever ideological reasons, and now cohabiting looks like a "safe" option. Until she gets pregnant and then you default into financial commitment. This would push it back to a conscious decision at the "and then she moves in" stage.
We've kind of destroyed marriage for whatever ideological reasons, and now cohabiting looks like a "safe" option. Until she gets pregnant and then you default into financial commitment. This would push it back to a conscious decision at the "and then she moves in" stage.
Except it isn't just "she" is it?
Its they/them and would likely be applied to any relationship.
This is going to result in people with a place simply not getting involved with anyone in case that person is just out for a share.
It will give sneaky grifters the abilty to scam vulnerable people with ease. Lonely old man, widow, kids left home, "carer" comes along, claims relationship and that she lived in, hey presto, gets half after a little while.
Gold diggers will love this.
Its they/them and would likely be applied to any relationship.
This is going to result in people with a place simply not getting involved with anyone in case that person is just out for a share.
It will give sneaky grifters the abilty to scam vulnerable people with ease. Lonely old man, widow, kids left home, "carer" comes along, claims relationship and that she lived in, hey presto, gets half after a little while.
Gold diggers will love this.
grumbledoak said:
I think that on balance this would be a good thing.
We've kind of destroyed marriage for whatever ideological reasons, and now cohabiting looks like a "safe" option. Until she gets pregnant and then you default into financial commitment. This would push it back to a conscious decision at the "and then she moves in" stage.
Current commitments can however be carefully considered.We've kind of destroyed marriage for whatever ideological reasons, and now cohabiting looks like a "safe" option. Until she gets pregnant and then you default into financial commitment. This would push it back to a conscious decision at the "and then she moves in" stage.
Marriage is certainly far into a relationship for most these days. The man should also be aware of the odds, and there is no excuse these days not to know them.
Similarly with children. The man either uses protection himself or will take the risk of that 18 year commitment.
When it comes to co-habiting it isn't really going to be anything like as considered. So she is keeping more clothes and a toothbrush at your place, so suddenly she is entitled to money if you split up?. There are lots of smaller steps and it doesn't get anything like the same level of consideration.
There are men out there, with large audiences, preaching that men can date women, but can never be permanently attached to them, as they will be shaken down. This sort of thing feeds that.
grumbledoak said:
It's not that difficult to avoid. You can "get involved" with people without moving them in.
There comes a point in any relationship where you decide to move in together. If you’re young and renting, this change wouldn’t be a problem. If you’re older or pushed yourself to buy somewhere when younger, that makes the move in decision a much bigger step than it used to be. This is a problem as cohabiting can reveal that while you like each other for chunks of time, being together all the time doesn’t work. Being able to find that out before you marry and risk half your stuff is very useful…
JagLover said:
Current commitments can however be carefully considered.
Marriage is certainly far into a relationship for most these days. The man should also be aware of the odds, and there is no excuse these days not to know them.
Similarly with children. The man either uses protection himself or will take the risk of that 18 year commitment.
When it comes to co-habiting it isn't really going to be anything like as considered. So she is keeping more clothes and a toothbrush at your place, so suddenly she is entitled to money if you split up?. There are lots of smaller steps and it doesn't get anything like the same level of consideration.
There are men out there, with large audiences, preaching that men can date women, but can never be permanently attached to them, as they will be shaken down. This sort of thing feeds that.
I don't think our destruction of marriage has been a good thing overall for our society.Marriage is certainly far into a relationship for most these days. The man should also be aware of the odds, and there is no excuse these days not to know them.
Similarly with children. The man either uses protection himself or will take the risk of that 18 year commitment.
When it comes to co-habiting it isn't really going to be anything like as considered. So she is keeping more clothes and a toothbrush at your place, so suddenly she is entitled to money if you split up?. There are lots of smaller steps and it doesn't get anything like the same level of consideration.
There are men out there, with large audiences, preaching that men can date women, but can never be permanently attached to them, as they will be shaken down. This sort of thing feeds that.
I think cohabiting probably should be an intentionally considered step.
It should be simple enough to define that "leaving a toothbrush at your place" doesn't count.
grumbledoak said:
I don't think our destruction of marriage has been a good thing overall for our society.
You’ve mentioned the “destruction of marriage” a couple of times on this thread now. What are you talking about? More people can marry now than ever before! It’s one of the reasons this legislation shouldn’t be needed…grumbledoak said:
It's not that difficult to avoid. You can "get involved" with people without moving them in.
Yup. And I suspect many will, ie keep their own places. Thereby putting more pressure on the housing market. Good job Lord Kier is building 1,5million homes in his back yard.
"If there is no joint property or parental responsibilities, a man can leave his partner with nothing"
Which seems... fair enough?
If you're the less well off partner then become better off, formalise your status, or leave.
France has a formal cohabitation agreement. Either create one here or leave things as they are.
The idea of some faintly fuzzy law waiting to descend on you at any moment would have me sticking to a shagbot.
Which seems... fair enough?
If you're the less well off partner then become better off, formalise your status, or leave.
France has a formal cohabitation agreement. Either create one here or leave things as they are.
The idea of some faintly fuzzy law waiting to descend on you at any moment would have me sticking to a shagbot.
Derek Smith said:
Is legislation such a big step? I know of two cohabiting couples who split and in both cases the person who had moved in claimed from the householder. This was 15-20 years ago. I remember one was based on contributing to household bills, including repairs, food, services, etc.
It's to do with automatic rights as set out under statute.At the moment, co-habiting couples can sue each other if it all goes pear shaped but each case stands on its own merits depending on circumstances. Marriage confers automatic rights and obligations which are set out in law.
Also, the Civil Partnership rules, which same-sex couples can avail of, also confer many of these rights and obligations.
I would assume that the Labour proposal would be to link unmarried, heterosexual, co-habiting couples to make use of the Civil Partnership rules.
I find it slightly amazing that in 2023 the Labour party still think of women as poor fragile child-like beings who need legal protection, rather than being capable of standing on their own two feet.
Since by definition this proposal only applies to those without children, are they really saying that, in effect, women can't be bothered to work?
Since by definition this proposal only applies to those without children, are they really saying that, in effect, women can't be bothered to work?
What do they think is going to happen? Not "what would they like to happen" but what would happen in real life?
If you make cohabitation more risky then fewer people will do it. It really is that simple. This consequences might well be unintended by the idealogical idiots but it's 100% foreseeable.
If you make cohabitation more risky then fewer people will do it. It really is that simple. This consequences might well be unintended by the idealogical idiots but it's 100% foreseeable.
I live with my girlfriend two kids, but I saved the deposit for my house alone, I pay the mortgage and all the bills, and also pay the £500 a month for childcare and I have our youngest most days when girlfriend is at work. If we need anything as a family it comes out of my savings.
My girlfriend pays for Sky TV and usually does the weekly shop. When we got together I paid off all her debts, and she's effectively in a better position than when we got together.
Don't get me wrong, I love having her about, and she's a great mum, but were we to split, I think it would be ridiculous if she were able to claim half was hers.
I've always maintained I'd give her a decent sum if we sperated so she could get back on her feet, but I don't like the idea that I'd have to.
Worth noting I've been divorced and possibly have slight insecurities about separation as I've seen how it can change people.
Can't support this law, unless someone with a very valid point changes my mind.
My girlfriend pays for Sky TV and usually does the weekly shop. When we got together I paid off all her debts, and she's effectively in a better position than when we got together.
Don't get me wrong, I love having her about, and she's a great mum, but were we to split, I think it would be ridiculous if she were able to claim half was hers.
I've always maintained I'd give her a decent sum if we sperated so she could get back on her feet, but I don't like the idea that I'd have to.
Worth noting I've been divorced and possibly have slight insecurities about separation as I've seen how it can change people.
Can't support this law, unless someone with a very valid point changes my mind.
JagLover said:
Marriage is certainly far into a relationship for most these days. The man should also be aware of the odds, and there is no excuse these days not to know them.
Similarly with children. The man either uses protection himself or will take the risk of that 18 year commitment.
Lots of "the man". What about "the woman"? Similarly with children. The man either uses protection himself or will take the risk of that 18 year commitment.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff