The rights of cohabiting couples
Wednesday, August 01, 2007
Link: A Conservative's blog: The rights of cohabiting couples.
Benedict makes good points. Couples wanting to achieve the results proposed by the Law Commission could easily do so contractually - most simply by entering into the "standard form contract" known as marriage.
I sense my libertarian arguments usually fall on deaf ears. Benedict has anyway made the point that this is no business of the State. But has anyone considered the practical side?
Britain has a profound housing shortage, with prices at historic highs when calculated as multiples of average earnings. That is partly driven by the housing needs of millions of immigrants; partly by planning restrictions. It is also driven by the increasing number of people living alone. Rising divorce rates create more households from the same number of people.
If these "reforms" go ahead, people will think more carefully about moving in together. Even more homes that could be lovingly shared will stand half used. Already more people than ever die alone and unloved because they would not settle for less than unattainable perfection in their relationships. This proposal can only make that situation worse, as people become even more reluctant to commit to each other.
Not that I think it is for Government to engineer "socially-desirable" outcomes. People should live as they please. But even by its own grim logic of social order, this proposal seems misguided.
Labour's popularity arises largely from a false perception of prosperity provided by cheap debt. Britain's massive personal debts (greater than those of all other Europeans combined!) are largely the result of "equity withdrawal" (a vile euphemism for hocking your home). That phenomenon is sustained by high and rising house prices.
I can't help but notice that these proposals will result in more single households, which will sustain demand for housing and keep prices high. This couldn't be about that, could it?
On the one hand there is a government intervention to protect what they see as a vulnerable group.
Who are the vulnerable in this case? If the problem is people unaquainted with the true legal position - as the goverment claims to believe - why not just advertise the true legal position?
Posted by: ad | Thursday, August 02, 2007 at 08:15 PM
Considering many single people use cohabiting as a "test-run" for marriage where they want to be free of permanent ties, I find this proposal quite draconian and undesirable. I also agree with your suggestion for a motive.
This ultimately complicates matters in an already complicated life.
Posted by: Wolfie | Wednesday, August 01, 2007 at 06:33 PM
I don't see how co-habitating couples can NOT be given these rights - in fact, I thought they already had them. Please, Tom, don't blame the single! We are already disadvantaged in the tax system and the bottom of everybody'd priority list. And sometimes you end up alone not because you sought perfection but because you just fell for a bastard.
Posted by: Welshcakes Limoncello | Wednesday, August 01, 2007 at 04:40 PM
Will Scotand too enjoy this dispensation? If so that would be droll so soon after abolishing "marriage by habit and repute".
Posted by: dearieme | Wednesday, August 01, 2007 at 02:52 PM
There's two parts to this.
On the one hand there is a government intervention to protect what they see as a vulnerable group. As you say there will be unintended consequences.
On the other, the government is refusing to hold people responsible for their own failure to carry out actions which the government presumably recognises are desirable. It's hard to see how the state usurping people's autonomy will encourage disirable behaviour.
Posted by: TDK | Wednesday, August 01, 2007 at 12:50 PM