Labour and common law marriage pledge

[SlamPunked]

I heard about this today, and I'm keen to know what non-married childfree people think of it? Especially how it applies to childfree people.

It's essentially a pledge from Labour to give cohabiting couples similar rights on separation to married couples. The pledge lacks details, but there are models in other countries that could be followed.

Obviously I understand the benefits for many individuals (people with children, people who are victims of abuse). However, I (40W) have purposefully decided not to marry my partner (55M) to protect my assets (been together over 10 years).

We both came to the relationship with nothing apart from debt. But now I have a really well-paid job that has allowed us both to pay off our debts and buy a house (get a mortgage) as equal owners.

But I earn a lot more than him (4x his salary) and save a lot of money in my pension. He tends to waste his money on clothes and hobbies, and has no pension to speak of. Day-to-day I cover bills, holidays etc, he pays for food and trips to the pub. If we break up (you never know what the future holds), I don't want him to have a claim on my pension too when I've already been bankrolling him for many years.

It isn't clear what a reform would do exactly, but it also feels a bit unfair in my case. If I wanted him to have a claim on my savings, I would have married him.

I would love others' perspectives, especially for how it applies to childfree people. Maybe I'm just being an arse, but when I read about the pledge I automatically thought "oh no". The pledge is pitched as something to help women who have sacrificed their career for children. But what about career women who have climbed the ladder, and have a lower earning partner? I'm not saying I want the former to suffer for my sake, instead I'm asking for nuance in how it's applied.

Where did you read about this pledge, do you have a link to the party website or a reliable source?

I'm sceptical about it being true tbh.

Paywall times article: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/labours-common-law-marriage-pledge-to-give-millions-of-cohabiting-couples-property-rights-d7xnq99w6

Comments on pledge (free summary): https://www.flip.co.uk/common-law-marriage-for-cohabitants-labours-pledge/

The pledge just refers to "property rights", but the whole thing is pretty vague.

In some other countries (e.g. Australia) where common law marriage exists the rights extend to many different assets.

https://www.ft.com/content/2e962a3c-ff1f-41db-88a2-76a7dfcdb2ff

Yes all vague but you're right it is being looked at. Scotland has something already?

I hope not!

We'd gaze to live apart. Hopefully there is some opt out one can sign?

I am (fairly recently) married, but childfree. I haven't looked into the proposal in detail but on the face of it I agree with you OP. I decided to marry for a reason. I decided not to marry my ex (who I lived with), also for reasons. This seems to take away the choice of the informed, possibly to protect the less informed?

Childfree here with a large amount of money behind me, this could potentially mean deciding never to live with a partner again.

I agree that there should be protection for giving up career earning potential by having children but that is what marriage is for. That should be alongside a stronger child maintenance system that maybe USA style removes driving licence/passport of non payers and somehow (don't know how) can go after money that the self employed hide from the collection agency.

I think this would be helpful for women who had children with men who refused to marry them. I'm not surehow fair it would be in say @SlamPunked case where they have chosen to keep things separate.

I agree Op (and I say this as someone who has been married for over 20 years).

Civil partnerships exist now for those that are uncomfortable with marriage for whatever reason. If someone has chosen not to get married and not to have a civil partnership then you have to assume that that is a choice that they chose to make.

I would not support this. I am married, and as the higher earner in our relationship, I know that I would stand to lose if our relationship went wrong, but that was a commitment that I chose to enter into. If people choose not to live together without making that commitment, then they should be free to do so in my opinion.

Haven't seen the detail but I would not support this. More meddling and control from Labour. People can already protect themselves by getting married, it's easy and cheap. This takes something away from those who just want to live together.

We have common law property laws here in Canada. They can vary by province, but basically if a couple is living in a marriage-like relationship for two years, they will share any property or assets attained while in the relationship, but not what was brought into the relationship. There are opt out rules that can be set out in a co-habitation agreement.

I think people need to be very careful when they start living together. We hear tales of woe every day on Mumsnet about partners who do not contribute as much, leaving the other scrambling; it's mostly the women who are shortchanged.

I do think it is a good thing to protect women and families, but I also think that people need to think carefully about co-habiting, and the resulting economic consequences.

i know a mum, a*hole ex partner got her to pay all the bills whilst he paid the mortgage. They split she has nothing, he has the house, I think it was about 18 months before she could escape. I expect more women would win than lose from this, but very tough to know what to do.

I'm so against this.

This alone would be enough to change my vote.

It’s a difficult one- can understand the need to protect folk, especially partners who give up their career/ earn less/ give up studies to aid the relationship for whatever reason. But I also think people should have the right to separate finances and to just be able to live together too. I lived with my husband for 6 years before getting married - if we had split and he had been entitled to a big chunk of my savings that would have been grossly unfair. There are legal protections you can put in place now without getting married- e.g. have a solicitor draw up how much each of you contributed to house deposits/ agree mortgage payment percentage split and there are also civil partnerships too like pp has suggested. It just feels like it is taking away peoples choices on how they want to live.

Of all the things for Labour (or any party) to be focussing on in the teeth of economic crisis, labour shortages in crucial sectors, serious global issues, climate emergency, NHS on its knees, increasing polarisation of rich and poor…. and they start blurring the lines between having a legal contract between a couple and not having one.

Crap priorities and surely crap electioneering.

Not as bad as ‘let’s introduce national service’ but dear oh dear.

And it’s a terrible idea.

Another vote for this being a terrible idea.

People should have the option of cohabiting without being financially entangled.

The issues arising in relation to partners making ill informed decisions to give up work / go part time / pay the bills and not the mortgage/ pay half the mortgage without being a joint tenant or tenant in common should be addressed through better education and awareness raising.

Are they going to get tough on the parents who refuse to pay or fiddle the books? Those that get in a new relationship and suddenly quit their jobs or earn less than minimum? Or is it just another way of getting a reducing pool of people to pay for everything and call it a success?

OP i am in exactly the same situation as you.

This proposal is insane

Thanks for highlighting this OP
Ridiculous. That's a rubber stamp on me having no choice about living with someone.

@innerdesign "This seems to take away the choice of the informed, possibly to protect the less informed?"

Nail on head. Why should those of us who actually understand what marriage means, be subjected to this? If it's an attempt to protect children, those laws should be in place.

Wouldn't it be easier to just put some resources into better informing people, especially women who want to have children, that marriage isn't just a "piece of paper" or whatever other bollocks their deadbeat-dad-in-the-making boyfriend has told them?

Obviously I understand the benefits for many individuals (people with children, people who are victims of abuse).

I have DC so sorry if I shouldn't post here. I saw it in active. I don't see how this would help many people, either with DC or abuse victims.

For people with DC, it would be better to focus on sorting out the child support system.

For abuse victims (with or without DC), it would only possibly help those in owner occupier homes. Which is great, but especially younger generations (although also increasingly older ones too) more and more are renting. Social rent, there's already rules around removing abusive partners from the tenancy. For private renters they'd still in most cases need somewhere else to go as likely the landlord took both earnings into account when letting the property.

I'd be in favour if there was a nice simple, very explicit opt out.
A form that you download and sign together in front of a witness that says "although we have lived together as romantic partners for two years, we want to be treated as flatmates, and neither of us will have any claim over any property in each other's name".

Everyone's on the same page, everyone knows where they stand.

It’s an awful idea and I do not support it. It would make people less likely to move in together.

I live in a country where that is already the case. Seems to work okay. When I got married I owned a flat, my DH (younger than me) owned nothing. When we separated everything was split 50/50, and that would still have been the case if we weren't married. Didn't bother me at all, he had done a lot to earn his share.