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.

Australia has had this for decades. Seems to work well and is a definite plus for children whose non married parents separate, particularly if their mother's career has been compromised due to maternity leave and child care.

Yes, thank you this. Including the financial and legal implications of popping out kids and not being married.

And there's no such thing as 'common law marriage.'

Better education, better child support systems and better responses to domestic abuse would all be good ways to address the problem. Removing choice is not.

Legal and financial entanglement must be an opt in choice - not unavoidable or opt out.

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

Absolutely. I can understand the desire to want to help those who end up in terrible situations through making wrong assumptions/ relying on an untrustworthy person, but this ain't it.

My friends got a Civil Partnership because they wanted this sort of thing.

It's about protecting the children. They should not be disadvantaged by their parents' choices when there is a simple solution. Sometimes we have to forego certain liberties for the common good. That is what civilisation is all about.

It will make people think twice before they decide to cohabit. The problem is Labour are failing to talk about the huge housing crisis in this country which is only going to get worse, I foresee people deciding to live separately but there just isn't enough housing 🤷‍♀️

If cohabitees have to sign opt outs to avoid this, lawyers will do very well out of it.

Also, the opt outs will become like pre-nups - worth nothing.

Prenups are worth nothing because they have no legal status. Opt outs could be written into the legislation to be enforceable.

This how I feel. I worry about women who will find it even more difficult to get away from an abusive man. We have a perfectly good system here. If you want the financial security and to share everything 50/ 50, get married. It isn't expensive and it is easy to do. Cohabiting will become very risky.

The (cross party) reviews into this all recommended such rights including an opt out. There are large numbers of vulnerable women who become disadvantaged by this issue, especially victims of abuse and often women who have had religious only marriages and don’t realise they don’t carry any weight here when separating. It would also allow inheritance tax exemptions, benefiting many more.

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn03372/

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5803/cmselect/cmwomeq/92/report.html#heading-2

It isn't expensive and it is easy to do. Cohabiting will become very risky

I can see it clogging the courts with cases and appeals unless this is minutely defined (how long does a relationship have to last, for a start?) and because this is Britain it'll be rushed through and not thought out.

Sometimes we have to forego certain liberties for the common good

Not as far as I'm concerned. You want the benefits of marriage, get married.

Have you noticed what board you're on, and read the first paragraph of the OP?

Estate agents will see a sudden rush in "2 flats with connecting doors"

How do they prove you are a couple? Not just flat mates? What about a flat mate you may occasionally shag?

(And to the previous poster, not everyone wants or has kids, so why should we be penalised for those who chose to.

"Oh this came up in active and I didn't bother to read what board I was on" - as per usual.

Good point @burnoutbabe!

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

And you can expect more of this type of thing from Labour - it's all about the lowest common denominator, this is not good for society - people need to learn to take responsibility for themselves.

It's frustrating as all of this would be resolved if people actually understood what marriage is (i.e. it's a contract to share assets not a party). People are so confused when they ask me why I'm not married and I carefully explain that it would have no legal or financial benefit for me. I could get behind this policy if it only applied to cohabiting couples with kids but I don't want this for myself.

I think it will be an absolute legal minefield - what happens if you haven't signed an opt-out or don't want to, for a start? will people have to get legal advice before they do?

Like I've always said and said upthread - want the advantages of marriage? get married. You don't have to spend 000s on a wedding and honeymoon, you don't even have to tell people.

If people don't already understand what marriage is and what CPs are, I don't think the solution is creating a third status, which will also be misunderstood. (4th status if you include "unmarried couple by choice"!)

I wonder, if it instead only kicked in when people had children, whether that would be in any way better? (I don't think so but the benefits would at least be more directed).

If the aim is to improve things specifically for parents with unequal assets, why doesn't this come under the CMS responsibilities?

I think there’s middle ground
you leave with what you brought and anything joint built up in the relationship is split

Absolutely not. This is rife for abuse. And I say that as someone who is childfree and will likely get married eventually (we have discussed doing it for inheritance tax issues with the house).

I do think however more needs to be done to protect unmarried stay at home parents who can be left homeless with nothing after they give up their job/careers to be child carers. This isn’t the solution though.

but how exactly do you define "during the relationship" - when you start living together? that could be just casual still - moving in when someone's rental up or between houses. How do you define WEALTH AT DAY X?

Thoroughly agree with meddling and control. Also another blow to the institution of marriage. Labour really hates traditional, married parents doesn’t it?

If you could either opt out or it was sharing any assets acquired during the living together period, I would be ok with that.

I would absolutely not want the same rights as marriage. I would never live with anyone again if this was the case, and I also wouldn't want anyone else's assets either just for living with them. That's what marriage or civil partnerships are for.

Perhaps the law around prenups would firm up if this were introduced.

I'm not living with someone and giving them half my assets after two years.

I keep telling my children not to marry!

Yes, even if opt-outs are allowed from any new forced marriage legislation, why is it up to people who don't want to marry to register it rather than people who do basically want to be married registering it - by getting married?

Why do the latter people deserve to be protected from their lack of action, but the former group can just end up with any old situation that they actively never chose, indicated or wanted?

If they brought in a law that, after, say, two years, you are effectively married, I can see the apps now, urging people to sign up to avoid a very costly mistake.

"Press here as soon as you meet somebody new and receive your automatic warning in 23 months' time, to make sure that you don't forget to split up with them before finding yourself married."

They'll advertise them with ubiquitous click-baity pop-ups saying "People who have been with their partners since [populate with today's date minus 23 months] need to act NOW!"