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

[LoobiJee]

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.

Absolutely this - good point!

The way to deal with issues of abusive relationships or rates of poverty in households headed by a single mother is not turning cohabitation into marriage without explicit consent.

it’s to ensure that women understand the risks of making themselves financially dependent on a man who hasn’t entered into a property sharing contract (that’s what marriage largely is). And making sure women can stay in work and return to work so they can financially support themselves and their children.

And for men to step up and shoulder the responsibilities of children properly. And various other things.

But sneaking marriage with out the party and paperwork on people is not a good idea.

Good point.

it’s to ensure that women understand the risks of making themselves financially dependent on a man who hasn’t entered into a property sharing contract (that’s what marriage largely is). And making sure women can stay in work and return to work so they can financially support themselves and their children.

Absolutely this - in fact the article I shared about Ireland is making exactly this point - that people don't know about it, and women especially end up sleepwalking into these situations, because we have a habit of not properly financially protecting ourselves, which society tacitly pushes.

“very unfair towards the children. Children of a previous marriage/relationship are already in a precarious situation and often lose out over a parent's new relationship.”

That hadn’t occurred to me. Really good point.

this.

My grandfathers were both widowed early and remarried, their children were disinherited by the second marriage, I'm certain that their biological mothers would not have wanted this.

Spot on.

Especially this.

”The way to deal with issues of abusive relationships or rates of poverty in households headed by a single mother is not turning cohabitation into marriage without explicit consent.”

What about lodgers? Should they gain rights over the landlords property? After all, they share the property...

Seems like a vexatious question but I'll bite.

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

Exactly @PuttingDownRoots and what's to stop a lodger claiming they were in a relationship with the home owner and staking their claim.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

What?

https://x.com/MartinSLewis/status/1710741563138089057?s=20

here are Keir and Sadiq with the promotion
https://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/news-photo/sadiq-khan-mayor-of-london-introduces-keir-starmer-leader-news-photo/1722868751

Anyway sorry to hijack.

Pretty much this.

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

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.

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.

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?

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.