I have noticed a new, irrational, approach to burying issues that the coalition does not like, and that is to label them “trivial” or to say that “we have more urgent priorities”. It came up in Any Questions on radio 4 today in relation to prenuptial contracts, and it was used to deflect my recent attempt to secure more equality in the use of courtesy titles. (See my earlier blog, Equality for Husbands, 25/10/13). Reform of the EU treaties has also been labelled “non-urgent”.
It is hard to think of an issue that deserves priority more than prenuptial contracts. That is because legal aid has been removed from the settlement of money issues on divorce, and those who cannot afford legal advice are left floundering in an emotional and uncertain sea. Today I read of a case concerning a wealthy ex-wife, forced to give a large sum to her relatively penniless ex-husband, despite a prenup in which he promised not to claim in the event of divorce. The costs of the litigation amounted to over £600,000, almost as much as the sum she then had to hand over. Prenups, for those who want them – and most will not – should give certainty, avoid excess expenditure on legal costs, and preserve assets acquired before marriage, or from the family on one side, or as a legacy or from a business, for the party who owns them. A caller to Any Answers described how the settlement with his ex-wife destroyed his business, putting workers out of a job, and wrecked his pension. For all those reasons, plus the unfairness of our existing law concerning financial provision on divorce, and the fact that its judge-made details have descended into a mire of complexity, impenetrability and inconsistency without clear principles, the law needs reform, right now. On 25 February I introduced a private member’s bill to reform it. I have no expectation that it will reach the statute book in the near future, but I hope it will start the great national debate that we ought to have. My Bill would make prenups binding and change the law so that only the assets acquired after marriage are split, and ongoing maintenance is limited to 3 years. We need to keep, however, the most generous possible provision for children. The argument that prenups would incline to divorce is nonsense. Many other countries with far lower divorce rates than ours recognise prenups.
As for my attempt to get the government (through the royal prerogative) either to extend courtesy titles to husbands of dames and women peers or limit them so that only the person who is given the title can use it – that too has had the “trivial” and “not urgent” treatment. I asked a question about it on 24th February, and some sympathisers reminded me that when women fought for the vote a hundred years ago, their concerns and their views on politics were also dismissed as “trivial” by some Liberals. Perhaps the only way one can get away with sexism these days is to call women’s issues “trivial”; the male mind of course only focuses on what is important and urgent.
Baroness Deech: The recent LawCom report would seem to be on similar lines to your proposals but they mention ‘financial needs’ as an exception to the nuptial agreement. Would you include this too or does certainty and preserving assets take precedence over the needs of the partner? (Your Bill doesn’t appear to be on http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2013-14.html yet.)
I’m a bit puzzled by your comment ‘Perhaps the only way one can get away with sexism these days is to call women’s issues “trivial”; the male mind of course only focuses on what is important and urgent.’ Surely the question of such honorifics and legal titles as the case may be is a ‘male’ issue and the discrimination against them is what you are seeking to end?
What pre-nups need to protect is the right of women who marry with the assumption they and their children will be ‘looked after’ in the traditional sense of that commitment. But, no this whole concept has veered relentlessly to something far more sinister, the protection of those with money not to have to divide their wealth with their spouse on their departure from that contract. And who is more likely to be screwed through that new mind set? Well women and children o course.
A good example would be the Royals. The idea they would have to split their massive wealth with a woman they married to legitimise their offspring sends terror throughout their veins. Look how many of the wives got screwed financially by that little firm as they toss them from here to there. Henry Tudor still reigns.
Marriage and family have been reduced to a matter of ‘triviality’ or made non existent in concept by political chicanery. Strangely and most dire of all in this mess, is the majority of people are looking to return to old values in marriage. They want commitment, a sense of honour, duty and the values once expected as the norm to return. Think not? Well what do you think homosexual marriage is all about? Why would government be flagging that up as the way to go if they didn’t feel the human psyche held great stock in the formation of family and human accountability toward it? And one of the top TV programmes we are stricken with is called ‘Don’t Tell The Bride.’ The one that tries to get an average guy to face up to the responsibility of what he taking on. At the same time of requiring the women who want this reassurance to accept the man they are coveting will be the leader of the group.
The media has made marriage an elimination from its memory. Television commercials no longer show the family at Sunday lunch or at anything else. All you see are abandoned children maniacally mouthing rock songs on pink bikes with kittens the closest companion. It speaks volumes in that it is heralded as the best loved con makers ploy. Singleness and separation sells and is pushed as the norm. And the reason is consumption. Split families consume more goods. Two of everything from vacuum cleaners to toilet paper. It is easier to be frugal when united.
The pre-nup must set up a contract of expectation of the marriage union and what it means to both parties. And such contract must be upheld in law. What the goals are and the plans within those goals and how they will achieve them is as important as is how they will support each other should they part. And then, if all else fails and they cannot keep that ‘vow’ because it is detrimental to health and well being, what they own jointly they must share 50/50 on separation…. ‘And with my worldly goods I thee endow’ whilst ‘keeping myself only unto you.’
Compared with the Blair government obssession with “Important” the use of the word “Trivial” is a blessed relief!!!
@GH:
What is ‘important’ but treated as ‘trivial’ is the increasing starvation of the ordinary people of the UK resulting in their having to go to food banks. Which the government now intends to bring down the figures of by directing jobcentres not to give them the required vouchers with a reason on it and to refuse them where possible. And it is this they want to deny or put under wraps in order to lead the lambs to the slaughter. Cover up of every kind when it comes to what they want to hide from or deny is happening to the nation as a result of their merciless and fraudulent policies on Welfare reform.
I was stunned when I read a comment post in the Guardian this morning giving a part of the Niel Kinnock speech in 1983. What on earth has happened to politicians since the ‘Blair creature’ and his American friends took over our parliament? Has killing become the mantra they now suck on whether that be in the Middle East or the UK. I read that 10,000 people died in the UK prior to receiving rightful benefit payments in 2013. A holocaust is taking place right here yet parliament is mute. Why is that?
Here is a section of the Kinnock speech. I never liked him but he was so very right when he warned of this in 1983. If only we had listened.
****
I warn you that you will have pain – when healing and relief depend on payment.
I warn you that you will have ignorance – when talents are untended and wits are wasted, when learning is a privilege and not a right.
I warn you that you will have poverty – when pensions slip and benefits are whittled away by a Government that won’t pay, in an economy that can’t pay.
I warn you that you will be cold – when fuel charges are used as a tax system that the rich don’t notice and the poor can’t afford.
I warn you that you must not expect work – when many cannot spend, more will not be able to earn. When they don’t earn, they don’t spend. When they don’t spend, work dies.
I warn you not to go into the streets alone after dark or into the streets in large crowds of protest in the light.
I warn you that you will be quiet – when the curfew of fear and the gibbet of unemployment make you obedient.
I warn you that you will have defence of a sort – with a risk and at a price that passes all understanding.
I warn you that you will be home-bound – when fares and transport bills kill leisure and lock you up.
I warn you that you will borrow less – when credit, loans, mortgages and easy payments are refused to people on your melting income.
If Margaret Thatcher wins, she will be more a Leader than a Prime Minister. That power produces arrogance and when it is toughened by Tebbitry and flattered and fawned upon by spineless sycophants, the boot-licking tabloid Knights of Fleet Street and placement in the Quangos, the arrogance corrupts absolutely.
If Margaret Thatcher wins –
I warn you not to be ordinary.
I warn you not to be young.
I warn you not to fall ill.
I warn you not to get old.”
Neil Kinnock -1983-
****
The Guardian commenter added this last line.
‘It is now that we must act before we become no more than slaves in a nation undergoing the final stages of preparation as a utopia for the rich!’
I agree with him.