Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Coercive control and cohabitees’ rights to property - Maria Wheeler and Labour

111 replies

LoobiJee · 08/10/2023 08:43

From a Guardian article.

”Labour would also seek to give common-law wives who live with their partners the same rights, including over property, as married women should their relationship end.”

Bit misleading. That right couldn’t be restricted to women. It would also be available to men who move in with a woman who owns her own property. Which would make a woman subject to coercive control even more unable to leave the relationship.

OP posts:
greenspaces4peace · 09/10/2023 19:52

the useless fathers need to be chased to pay their fair share of childcare; which would be an unpopular thing for a mainly male political force to impose on males.
but honestly based on my years of mn, the shady pay dodgers are the crux of the problem. no under the table work, and no claims of being unemployed while living the dream lifestyle.

and if that means they are legally not allowed to cohabitate with another woman for 21 years so be it.
i'm in canada where there are common law regulations, but also where HMRC (called CRA here) knows if you sneeze at night.

RaininSummer · 09/10/2023 18:32

Definitely not.

Winnading · 09/10/2023 18:28

RaininSummer · 09/10/2023 18:25

Another woman here who would have to kick my partner out rather than risk my house.

I guess we aren't voting labour then.

RaininSummer · 09/10/2023 18:25

Another woman here who would have to kick my partner out rather than risk my house.

Gothambutnotahamster · 09/10/2023 18:05

What happened in NZ @TheClitterati ?

Gothambutnotahamster · 09/10/2023 18:05

TheirEminence · 08/10/2023 21:08

No, marriage does not always protect, especially if you have assets - which is why nobody should find themselves in a situation in which they are quasi-married against their will.

Absolutely!

TheClitterati · 09/10/2023 14:22

Which would make a woman subject to coercive control even more unable to leave the relationship.

Yes this is exaclty what these laws did to women in NZ.

TheirEminence · 08/10/2023 21:08

No, marriage does not always protect, especially if you have assets - which is why nobody should find themselves in a situation in which they are quasi-married against their will.

ladygindiva · 08/10/2023 20:43

Winnading · 08/10/2023 12:23

Totally agree, I'm not married BECAUSE I own a house and if we were to split he could take half. I worked bloody hard to buy my house. Bought well before I got together with current partner. I'd be pissed beyond belief if this law came in. So I'd have to chuck my partner out to keep my house safe. Seems a bit ridiculous after 15 years together. But I would nevertheless chuck him out.

What housing crisis?

Show quote history

Similar situation here. I'd also worry about cocklodgers preying on vulnerable widows etc.

IncomingTraffic · 08/10/2023 20:18

I would be very wary of teaching anyone that marriage is straightfowardly protective and the right thing to do to. It’s far more complicated than that, especially for women who have built up their own assets before meeting a partner.

quantumbutterfly · 08/10/2023 16:28

ICanSeeMyHouseFromHere · 08/10/2023 16:01

I'd start with making sure women and girls understand their legal position in a co-habitation / children outside marriage arrangement. Too many go into relationships with no clue.

Absolutely this - my son has a 'citizenship' lesson at school, which is a good start. Before my time, Home Economics existed - which was diluted into just a cooking class, but it used to be about family budgets etc. That's what I'd like to see - less of this fiddling around with the Maths/English/History curriculum or demanding primary teachers supervise teeth brushing, and some lessons on how to pay an electricity bill, what the law is around renting a house, how pensions work, what responsibilities parents have towards kids, what difference being married makes etc. So kids - especially girls - are making educated decisions, not running off romance movies and american legal dramas.

agree.

ICanSeeMyHouseFromHere · 08/10/2023 16:01

I'd start with making sure women and girls understand their legal position in a co-habitation / children outside marriage arrangement. Too many go into relationships with no clue.

Absolutely this - my son has a 'citizenship' lesson at school, which is a good start. Before my time, Home Economics existed - which was diluted into just a cooking class, but it used to be about family budgets etc. That's what I'd like to see - less of this fiddling around with the Maths/English/History curriculum or demanding primary teachers supervise teeth brushing, and some lessons on how to pay an electricity bill, what the law is around renting a house, how pensions work, what responsibilities parents have towards kids, what difference being married makes etc. So kids - especially girls - are making educated decisions, not running off romance movies and american legal dramas.

honkersbonkers38 · 08/10/2023 15:52

women will no longer simply be able to chuck a man out. He will be able to say "I've lived here for a year or so, I am entitled to a portion of the property or a pay-off". And it will be backed up by the law.
She could draw up a lodgers agreement, (and so pay tax on any income over the threshold). She could refuse to share her home - as could he. She could rent out her own home and they could rent somewhere else together but the laws surrounding being a landlord now make that almost impossible if you're an amateur. (And Tax would be payable)

What are the government trying to do with this one?

110APiccadilly · 08/10/2023 14:41

IncomingTraffic · 08/10/2023 11:38

i think this stuff is ridiculous. People can choose to be married or they can choose not to be.

It really isn’t ok to sneak the obligations of a legal contract on to people who’ve chosen not to marry.

This. The option to marry or, if you're dead against marriage, as some people are, get a civil partnership, exists. It isn't difficult to do or expensive unless you want it to be. This almost forces a marriage-like relationship on people who may not want it.

Winnading · 08/10/2023 14:37

FKATondelayo · 08/10/2023 13:37

Everything the Labour party says and does lately makes me more confident and less conflicted about not voting for them. They keep the 2 child cap, keep welfare spending as it is, bring in self-ID, one of their conference events is hosted by a payday loan company, add in stupid performative laws with huge negative (un?)intended consequences for women like this one and misogyny-as-hate-crime one. What is the point of voting for them? They are not going to help women out of poverty.

It yet again showcases their lack of critical thinking skills.

It's so full of holes that some of the issues certainly wont be able to be legislated for.

Makes me wonder how invested they really are in becoming the party in power.

Its as if they deliberated on ideas so stupid that when they mention them most people will be turned off by them, hence no one voting for them.
It seems deliberate at this point.

quantumbutterfly · 08/10/2023 14:03

RhymesWithOrange · 08/10/2023 14:03

The is the wrong solution to a real problem.

I'd start with making sure women and girls understand their legal position in a co-habitation / children outside marriage arrangement. Too many go into relationships with no clue.

agree

RhymesWithOrange · 08/10/2023 14:03

The is the wrong solution to a real problem.

I'd start with making sure women and girls understand their legal position in a co-habitation / children outside marriage arrangement. Too many go into relationships with no clue.

MrsDanversGlidesAgain · 08/10/2023 13:59

ResisterRex · 08/10/2023 13:39

Essentially then, this is another idea so full of holes you could use it as a sieve.

Pretty much this.

ApocalipstickNow · 08/10/2023 13:41

one of their conference events is hosted by a payday loan company

What?

ResisterRex · 08/10/2023 13:39

Essentially then, this is another idea so full of holes you could use it as a sieve.

FKATondelayo · 08/10/2023 13:37

Everything the Labour party says and does lately makes me more confident and less conflicted about not voting for them. They keep the 2 child cap, keep welfare spending as it is, bring in self-ID, one of their conference events is hosted by a payday loan company, add in stupid performative laws with huge negative (un?)intended consequences for women like this one and misogyny-as-hate-crime one. What is the point of voting for them? They are not going to help women out of poverty.

quantumbutterfly · 08/10/2023 13:35

Actually marriage exists because women used to be considered property, they still are in many parts of the world.

FKATondelayo · 08/10/2023 13:33

Yeah, I disagree for reasons mentioned. Also what is the definition of cohabiting partner to stop anyone who lives in someone else's property taking advantage? If I stay with my friend for a few months can I have 50% of her house? Will there be inheritance tax breaks?

Marriage and civil partnership exist for this reason.

quantumbutterfly · 08/10/2023 13:29

MrsDanversGlidesAgain · 08/10/2023 13:25

Where (and what) is the burden of proof that a lodger is a partner? The presence of shared children would be persuasive I suppose

What's the burden of proof in a relationship where there aren't children?

In Australia you can register a defacto relationship but that's just marriage under another name.

Edited

If there aren't children I think there should be less reason for women to lose financial independence. Plus they don't have to consider providing for their children and themselves, it's slightly easier to leave.