Divorced male politician champions marriage?

[Warmlight1]

To think this is a huge red flag ( but not a patriotic one)

www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/couples-children-should-married-reform-uk-deputy-leader-richard-tice-b1294502.html?fbclid=IwdGRjcAT6MT5jbGNrBPoxJ3Bkb2YBZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAc3J0YwZhcHBfaWQMMzUwNjg1NTMxNzI4AAEeyhi_hx1fz8j-pF2h0MYQMsrJTXV9WFwrH-PekD1iPGKmDU6n0zx3qpoS1dE_aem_OKiH8_wE8O3iLTAIFPy42g

Well the widow one is fine, you marry the first person eho comes alone, ideally a fellow widower cos that helps them out too.
Hubby disappeared so you can't divorce and remarry, you're screwed.

I think it’s really complex. Historically, there was no care given to whether a marriage was a happy one. Or whether two people were aligned in their views etc. People were married, took up fairly fixed roles in the marriage based on their sex, and that was that. I don’t believe that there’s been some great change in compatibility, I just think marriages are easier to get out of than they were in the past and there is less social stigma around divorce.

I think it’s a good thing that women no longer have to be trapped in miserable marriages or bad situations (as much, obviously it still happens). I have zero desire to marry again (I’m only in my 30s) and no inclination to live with someone either. But there are knock on effects - increased housing demands, huge reductions in disposable income as a single parent etc etc.

I don’t see what Reform are suggesting as any kind of solution - my opinion is that it loosely mirrors the “Christian” values being touted in the US and is far more about putting women in their place than anything else. But I do think it’s useful to understand the was a shift in societal values changes things.

More pish spouting from the pish fountain.

Aye. Course you do @thisismeithinkorisit .
Should this marriage take place before the funeral or will after do? 😉

Neither of us are in social housing. But we have doubled the demand on the rental market, which reduces the number of available properties and increases prices.

I think it’s really complex. Historically, there was no care given to whether a marriage was a happy one. Or whether two people were aligned in their views etc. People were married, took up fairly fixed roles in the marriage based on their sex, and that was that.

I think this is really important when discussing why couples struggle now. People now need to think about what they want their marriage to look like. And leave when it is not working.

In the past you just did your role whether you wanted it or not. Probably why religious marriages which still follow this model have lower divorce rates.

Objectively it would be better for family homes to house two adults rather than just one. If more men were accommodated within family homes there would be less of a crisis of male homelessness.
However like everything that comes out of that nest of half wits, wrong uns and incompetents, its a superficial ill thought out 'fix' that ignores costs, consequences and collateral damage. Particularly to women. No surprise there.
Fortunately they've as much chance of being able to impose their Dystopia as I have of becoming the next PM. As even in the highly unlikely event of a majority, they lack the ability to implement their ideas, so their lazy incompetence would protect us all.

So essentially we should push marriage but not that kind, only a particular state sanctioned type. And there's no problem with Reform having the mechanism to abolish any version of marriage with which they disagree because they probably won't do that. (Until they do.)
I think single mothers should be able to expect financial security, including stable housing, regardless of whether there's a non resident parent available to pay maintenance. Otherwise what are we saying? That the stability of a family depends on the willingness of a man to continue to fairly contribute? That ideal has never come to pass yet.

@ClarkeandNewmanin this country, you are either legally married or you're not! You can have as many commitment ceremonies or religious weddings as you like but they mean jack shit when it comes to dividing assets upon separation or inheritance. You can pander to people's feelings and pretend their non legal marriages are exactly the same as the legal ones but it isn't true and does people a disservice who think that 'common law wife' is a real thing. I'm massively opposed to the state giving rights over finances or property, to people who have not made the active choice to get married!

Re Reform - marriages that are already legal in this country should remain so - that includes same sex. There's no public appetite to change this - the vast majority support same sex marriage. So I can't see abolishing them as being high on Reform's agenda.

I stand by the view that a marriage should meet the legal requirements of this country before they are recognised as legitimate.

Children do have fathers and the state should do everything in its power to track those men down and make them pay for the kids that they helped to create. NRP should not be allowed to opt out, to hide their earnings and assets. Even if it costs the state more money to pursue these men that it would cost to just give the resident parent the money, it should be done anyway, to send the message that children are not just the mother's responsibility. There's been too much demonisation of single mums and not enough demonisation of the men who disappeared and put them in that position.
Now obviously single mums and children need secure housing, and decent childcare that doesn't bankrupt her, but it shouldn't be the default position that the state meets these costs instead of the father.

You can have a civil partnership on top of any religious ceremony that would confer all the rights of a legal marriage. Or a registry office marriage if you don't want a religious ceremony. It seems daft not at least to do something if you are not legally married but in a long term relationship with children, or even without children to make sure of an equitable share of assets if one of you calls it quits.

Just saw this which adds in some context- Richard Tice wants to be ambitious for couples- clearly feels that Divorce was a mere inconvenience for him and doesn't appreciate others who are not millionaires are not similarly cushioned.
Lee Anderson just wants to use the housing lever to increase marriages so that women will have more children which presumably they can't afford. And then given the ratio of divorce stats, for the women to be increasingly unhappy and it be increasingly expensive for the state to undo?
They've missed out where they shut down the avenues for women to leave. Because that's the only way to make it work.

www.facebook.com/share/r/1EevScfCNd/

Your choice entirely.

Obviously the peasants must be held to different standards. 🙄

.....and this is being sold to us as challenging the establishment? Supporting working people- women specifically? Protecting women from violence?
Course Reform have always had a problem recognising that British women are sometimes at risk from known and related men, and the extent to which marriage can be a trap for some.