"Families will be under “surveillance” as new Government guidance reveals that health visitors will make a record 11 home visits to monitor not just the health and development of a baby, but also a range of personal details about parents, including finances and mental health.
Under the Named Person scheme health visitors will also act as a Named Person for 0 – 5s, and this latest 64-page document published last week discloses an extensive checklist by which families should be ‘assessed’ during the visits.
The Scottish Government’s £41.6 million Universal Health Visiting Pathway Scotland: Pre-Birth to Pre-School programme sets out a strict schedule of 8 visits within the child’s first year and 3 between 13 months and 5 years, with each visit lasting up to an hour and a half."
A NO2NP spokesman said: “Much of this is gobbledygook. But, alongside the talk of ‘Health Plan Indicators’, ‘salutogenic approaches’ and ‘human ecology’, some things come through loud and clear.
“Firstly, this calls itself a surveillance programme – how could 11 visits by the age of four with questions about family finance, TV time and sun cream use be considered anything else?
“Following this guidance threatens to turn health visitors into family managers. And health visitors will be typing up a wide range of extremely private information into a state database.
“Secondly, consent is not required for information sharing with or by a Named Person to promote ‘wellbeing’, even where there is a duty of confidentiality. The document says consent shouldn’t even be sought in case it’s refused and the parent-health visitor relationship is damaged. Fundamental principles of consent are being thrown aside, which is what we’ve been saying all along is part and parcel of the Named Person scheme.”.
Liz Smith MSP said: “This completely undermines the trust within family relationships and is exactly the reason for the increasing fears about the Named Person and the nanny state.”
Theresa Fyffe, Director of the Royal College of Nursing Scotland, said the plan would “help children and their families get support if they need it”, but added: “However, we have significant concerns about implementing the Named Person scheme.”
[I did prefer the Law Lords. Sounded nice and medieval, rather than aping America].
Ditto. I prefer to still refer to them informally as the Law Lords (since that was an informal term anyway)
I quite liked Owen's idea of a Ministry of Labour. It has a muscular yet retro sound to it. We should definitely bring back the Law Lords. I browsed through the list of defunct Government departments, and would also like to see:
The Ministry of Power The Ministry of Production The War Office [Now with added nukes!] The Northern Department
Ministry sounds better than department in my view, I don't really know why it's been dropped from all but the MoD.
FFS the twitter mob are trying to get some stupid campaign about boycotting Byron Burgers, because they were found to have employed a load of illegals (with false papers) and of course cooperated with the authorities when they came knocking.
It's a disgrace when law breakers are held to account! (Well, that's more or less the Greens line):
To put any blame on the company it in a way even worse. What do people expect them to do? Block the plod / immigration officials? As a legitimate company (selling over priced burgers) they have to do fully cooperate.
Well can you imagine the headlines if they decided not to comply? "Byron facing millions in fines for hiring illegal workers, directors facing prison". The outrage bus is full, as always, is full of virtue signalling fools.
I'm not sure that setting up a fake training day doesn't go above and beyond compliance with the law. If the American election teaches us anything, it is that both sides can be pretty ropey.
So the imirectors? Mad.
They should be heavily fined in any case.
I wonder how many other sets of 'false papers' are circulating in London, and how much effort employers like this make to check them.
Are you do?
Uttering False Coin. The outrage.
Wasn't so long ago you got disemboweled alive for that as it was deemed as High Treason.
Wasn't Isaac Newton employed to try to prevent false coinage and the like. Serious work if it requires a man of his intellect!
Nick Earley Scottish Government's Named Persons policy unlawful, UK Supreme Court rules
What is this policy about?
Nationalising Children. Basically if you have a child you get audited by the Social Workers five times a year (by them coming round your house and interrogating you) and every child is allocated their own social worker.
Basically the state owns them and parents have them under sufference.
Even the BNP have never come up with anything like that.
That is utter bollocks.
Hush, as any fule kno, Falangist Paul is an expert on the Scottchies and their weird foreign culture.
FFS the twitter mob are trying to get some stupid campaign about boycotting Byron Burgers, because they were found to have employed a load of illegals (with false papers) and of course cooperated with the authorities when they came knocking.
It's a disgrace when law breakers are held to account! (Well, that's more or less the Greens line):
To put any blame on the company it in a way even worse. What do people expect them to do? Block the plod / immigration officials? As a legitimate company (selling over priced burgers) they have to do fully cooperate.
Well can you imagine the headlines if they decided not to comply? "Byron facing millions in fines for hiring illegal workers, directors facing prison". The outrage bus is full, as always, is full of virtue signalling fools.
I'm not sure that setting up a fake training day doesn't go above and beyond compliance with the law. If the American election teaches us anything, it is that both sides can be pretty ropey.
So the immigration official comes to the management and says, "we want you to do this". What is their likely response?
Imagine the alternative, raids while they are working and there are people in the restaurant, investigations over whether the checks were done properly, unlimited fines, possible jail time for store managers or directors? Mad.
They should be heavily fined in any case.
I wonder how many other sets of 'false papers' are circulating in London, and how much effort employers like this make to check them.
Are you an expert in such matters? How many counterfeit £1.00 coins have you held and failed to report to the police/ BoE as you are required to do?
Uttering False Coin. The outrage.
Wasn't so long ago you got disemboweled alive for that as it was deemed as High Treason.
Wasn't so long ago there were no PCs nor Internet. Your point is?
I do like the BBC headline quote from Obama's speech: 'We'll carry Clinton to victory'. While fine in context, given despite her having some fans we all know some on the left are less than enthusiastic about her, I cannot help but read it as 'We'll carry her to victory, because god knows she won't get there without us carrying her'.
That's how I read it, too.
If my reading of middle America is correct they're unlikely to vote for a Beta candidate for President over an Alpha one.
On that topic, why we haven't seized the opportunity of making those responsible for BST/GMT changes Time Lords, I have no idea. Country is going to the dogs.
On that topic, why we haven't seized the opportunity of making those responsible for BST/GMT changes Time Lords, I have no idea. Country is going to the dogs.
@BBCPhilipSim: Breaking: The Supreme Court has ruled that the Scottish Government's Named Person scheme is "unlawful".
I believe that this makes a second Independence referendum inevitable: - N. Sturgeon.
Well done the Supreme Court.
Go on Nicola, make our day, have a referendum on indepenence over the tartan Schutzstaffel
Sadly, at present, I see Scottish independence as inevitable simply because I don't think there is any field of policy in which a majority of Scots would accept a UK decision if it were different to an exclusively Scottish one. And the SNP are masters at fostering division over this.
Continuously retreating the scope of UK powers by further devolution to Holyrood to appease such sentiment does nothing to stabilise the politics of the Union long-term, even if it buys a few months of 'listening' headlines in the very short-term.
@BBCPhilipSim: Breaking: The Supreme Court has ruled that the Scottish Government's Named Person scheme is "unlawful".
I believe that this makes a second Independence referendum inevitable: - N. Sturgeon.
Well done the Supreme Court.
Go on Nicola, make our day, have a referendum on indepenence over the tartan Schutzstaffel
Sadly, at present, I see Scottish independence as inevitable simply because I don't think there is any field of policy in which a majority of Scots would accept a UK decision if it were different to an exclusively Scottish one. And the SNP are masters at fostering division over this.
Continuously retreating the scope of UK powers by further devolution to Holyrood to appease such sentiment does nothing to stabilise the politics of the Union long-term, even if it buys a few months of 'listening' headlines in the very short-term.
Scottish Gov't has 42 days to amend it's named person policy. Given it passed by a wide margin the first time round I expect the Gov't will amend the legislation rather than scrapping it.
Meanwhile, in Spain they're celebrating the fact that unemployment has fallen to 20%.
I'm always slightly sceptical of the Spanish unemployment numbers: the proportion of people in work has increased significantly since 1999, yet unemployment has doubled.
@BBCPhilipSim: Breaking: The Supreme Court has ruled that the Scottish Government's Named Person scheme is "unlawful".
I believe that this makes a second Independence referendum inevitable: - N. Sturgeon.
Well done the Supreme Court.
Go on Nicola, make our day, have a referendum on indepenence over the tartan Schutzstaffel
Sadly, at present, I see Scottish independence as inevitable
Yes, I came to this conclusion a few years ago. I think separation will actually be good for all of us... We'll probably have much better relations post Scottish independence than we do right now. It will ease many of the tensions north and south of the border.
Mr. Gin, not recently. There was an update (unsure if you saw it) that things were progressing positively at that time, but it was a few days or maybe even a week or two ago.
Meanwhile, in Spain they're celebrating the fact that unemployment has fallen to 20%.
I'm always slightly sceptical of the Spanish unemployment numbers: the proportion of people in work has increased significantly since 1999, yet unemployment has doubled.
Slightly skeptical !!!! .....they are utter bullshit. There is no doubt lots of people are out of work, but even when the economy was storming ahead 12% were supposedly unemployed.
They are about as reliable as reports on average earnings of Greeks.
@BBCPhilipSim: Breaking: The Supreme Court has ruled that the Scottish Government's Named Person scheme is "unlawful".
I believe that this makes a second Independence referendum inevitable: - N. Sturgeon.
Well done the Supreme Court.
Go on Nicola, make our day, have a referendum on indepenence over the tartan Schutzstaffel
Sadly, at present, I see Scottish independence as inevitable simply because I don't think there is any field of policy in which a majority of Scots would accept a UK decision if it were different to an exclusively Scottish one. And the SNP are masters at fostering division over this.
Continuously retreating the scope of UK powers by further devolution to Holyrood to appease such sentiment does nothing to stabilise the politics of the Union long-term, even if it buys a few months of 'listening' headlines in the very short-term.
I completely agree. We have a nation-state in the union that has the population of SW England. There's no way to fix geography or demographics.
I still think we should offer to accept any areas that don't vote for Sindy into England .
Meanwhile, in Spain they're celebrating the fact that unemployment has fallen to 20%.
I'm always slightly sceptical of the Spanish unemployment numbers: the proportion of people in work has increased significantly since 1999, yet unemployment has doubled.
Mr. Gin, not recently. There was an update (unsure if you saw it) that things were progressing positively at that time, but it was a few days or maybe even a week or two ago.
I didn't see it. But nice to hear things were progressing OK then.
Putting aside that health visitors are not social workers you link from no2np says 11 visits in 5 years. Which is 2.2 visits a year.
Here in non-NP-yet Scotland we had 3 health visitor visits in the first 6 months, just doing the 27 and 30 month development checks now so that's a couple nore visits before they are 3 plus a smattering of other visitor appointments.
So once again NO2NP (formed mostly of groups who unironically write about the dangers of the contraception industry) are just chucking out cntextless guff to create a scare story.
Meanwhile, in Spain they're celebrating the fact that unemployment has fallen to 20%.
I'm always slightly sceptical of the Spanish unemployment numbers: the proportion of people in work has increased significantly since 1999, yet unemployment has doubled.
Slightly skeptical !!!! .....they are utter bullshit. There is no doubt lots of people are out of work, but even when the economy was storming ahead 12% were supposedly unemployed.
They are about as reliable as reports on average earnings of Greeks.
I'm particularly sceptical about the regional numbers: I can quite believe Andalucia has unemployment of 30%. But I struggle with the idea that Madrid's is as high as 17%.
@BBCPhilipSim: Breaking: The Supreme Court has ruled that the Scottish Government's Named Person scheme is "unlawful".
I believe that this makes a second Independence referendum inevitable: - N. Sturgeon.
Well done the Supreme Court.
Go on Nicola, make our day, have a referendum on indepenence over the tartan Schutzstaffel
Sadly, at present, I see Scottish independence as inevitable simply because I don't think there is any field of policy in which a majority of Scots would accept a UK decision if it were different to an exclusively Scottish one. And the SNP are masters at fostering division over this.
Continuously retreating the scope of UK powers by further devolution to Holyrood to appease such sentiment does nothing to stabilise the politics of the Union long-term, even if it buys a few months of 'listening' headlines in the very short-term.
I still think we should offer to accept any areas that don't vote for Sindy into England .
While an amusing thought to offset the sadness that would be Scotland voting for separation, there is a difference between not wanting to split from England and wanting to break away from the rest of Scotland.
Scottish Gov't has 42 days to amend it's named person policy. Given it passed by a wide margin the first time round I expect the Gov't will amend the legislation rather than scrapping it.
A wide margin? It was unanimous ( with the Conservatives 'doing a Labour ' and abstaining)
"Families will be under “surveillance” as new Government guidance reveals that health visitors will make a record 11 home visits to monitor not just the health and development of a baby, but also a range of personal details about parents, including finances and mental health.
Under the Named Person scheme health visitors will also act as a Named Person for 0 – 5s, and this latest 64-page document published last week discloses an extensive checklist by which families should be ‘assessed’ during the visits.
The Scottish Government’s £41.6 million Universal Health Visiting Pathway Scotland: Pre-Birth to Pre-School programme sets out a strict schedule of 8 visits within the child’s first year and 3 between 13 months and 5 years, with each visit lasting up to an hour and a half."
A NO2NP spokesman said: “Much of this is gobbledygook. But, alongside the talk of ‘Health Plan Indicators’, ‘salutogenic approaches’ and ‘human ecology’, some things come through loud and clear.
“Firstly, this calls itself a surveillance programme – how could 11 visits by the age of four with questions about family finance, TV time and sun cream use be considered anything else?
“Following this guidance threatens to turn health visitors into family managers. And health visitors will be typing up a wide range of extremely private information into a state database.
“Secondly, consent is not required for information sharing with or by a Named Person to promote ‘wellbeing’, even where there is a duty of confidentiality. The document says consent shouldn’t even be sought in case it’s refused and the parent-health visitor relationship is damaged. Fundamental principles of consent are being thrown aside, which is what we’ve been saying all along is part and parcel of the Named Person scheme.”.
Liz Smith MSP said: “This completely undermines the trust within family relationships and is exactly the reason for the increasing fears about the Named Person and the nanny state.”
Theresa Fyffe, Director of the Royal College of Nursing Scotland, said the plan would “help children and their families get support if they need it”, but added: “However, we have significant concerns about implementing the Named Person scheme.”
It's a classic example of how legislating to make the State a better servant of the individual can end up working out the other way round.
The SNP probably think it will give parents more help and advice on call. In reality, it will attract new busybody recruits who have very clear ideas about what good parenting is and enjoy hectoring others, and far too many named persons will be unable to resist checking up on children on their list and using the resources and powers of the State to take action if they object to anything the parent is doing to raise their child.
Meanwhile, in Spain they're celebrating the fact that unemployment has fallen to 20%.
I'm always slightly sceptical of the Spanish unemployment numbers: the proportion of people in work has increased significantly since 1999, yet unemployment has doubled.
Fewer inactive people surely.
Interestingly, Spain has a higher employment ratio than Italy - yet has an unemployment rate twice Italy's level.
It's a classic example of how legislating to make the State a better servant of the individual can end up working out the other way round.
The SNP probably think it will give parents more help and advice on call. In reality, it will attract new busybody recruits who have very clear ideas about what good parenting is and enjoy hectoring others, and far too many named persons will be unable to resist checking up on children on their list and using the resources and powers of the State to take action if they object to anything the parent is doing to raise their child.
@BBCPhilipSim: Breaking: The Supreme Court has ruled that the Scottish Government's Named Person scheme is "unlawful".
I believe that this makes a second Independence referendum inevitable: - N. Sturgeon.
Well done the Supreme Court.
Go on Nicola, make our day, have a referendum on indepenence over the tartan Schutzstaffel
Sadly, at present, I see Scottish independence as inevitable simply because I don't think there is any field of policy in which a majority of Scots would accept a UK decision if it were different to an exclusively Scottish one. And the SNP are masters at fostering division over this.
Continuously retreating the scope of UK powers by further devolution to Holyrood to appease such sentiment does nothing to stabilise the politics of the Union long-term, even if it buys a few months of 'listening' headlines in the very short-term.
Agreed. Sadly.
I'm genuinely unsure on this. We need more polling but I suspect the figures are still pretty tight and it's quite hard to know how firm the Yes/No feelings are.
It's a classic example of how legislating to make the State a better servant of the individual can end up working out the other way round.
The SNP probably think it will give parents more help and advice on call. In reality, it will attract new busybody recruits who have very clear ideas about what good parenting is and enjoy hectoring others, and far too many named persons will be unable to resist checking up on children on their list and using the resources and powers of the State to take action if they object to anything the parent is doing to raise their child.
It isn't like we haven't had good examples of busybodies causing trouble, you wouldn't want to be found to be supporting the wrong political party in Rotherham ....
Scottish Gov't has 42 days to amend it's named person policy. Given it passed by a wide margin the first time round I expect the Gov't will amend the legislation rather than scrapping it.
A wide margin? It was unanimous ( with the Conservatives 'doing a Labour ' and abstaining)
It wasn't unanimous then. But the point remains, clearly the same thing with tweaks will get through fine if they want.
Meanwhile, in Spain they're celebrating the fact that unemployment has fallen to 20%.
I'm always slightly sceptical of the Spanish unemployment numbers: the proportion of people in work has increased significantly since 1999, yet unemployment has doubled.
Fewer inactive people surely.
As an aside, the employment to population data from the World Bank (here: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SL.EMP.TOTL.SP.ZS) looks at all people above the age of 15. Ageing societies - with an increasing proportion of retired people - should mean that this number is falling everywhere, (And, indeed, that's what you see in most countries.)
Except Spain where, except for a brief period from 2005 to 2007, the employment ratio has never been higher. Yet the country also reports some of the highest levels of unemployment in the world.
Meanwhile, in Spain they're celebrating the fact that unemployment has fallen to 20%.
I'm always slightly sceptical of the Spanish unemployment numbers: the proportion of people in work has increased significantly since 1999, yet unemployment has doubled.
Fewer inactive people surely.
Interestingly, Spain has a higher employment ratio than Italy - yet has an unemployment rate twice Italy's level.
Italy has a huge number of inactive women, I don't think Spain has the same issue.
@BBCPhilipSim: Breaking: The Supreme Court has ruled that the Scottish Government's Named Person scheme is "unlawful".
I believe that this makes a second Independence referendum inevitable: - N. Sturgeon.
Well done the Supreme Court.
Go on Nicola, make our day, have a referendum on indepenence over the tartan Schutzstaffel
Sadly, at present, I see Scottish independence as inevitable simply because I don't think there is any field of policy in which a majority of Scots would accept a UK decision if it were different to an exclusively Scottish one. And the SNP are masters at fostering division over this.
Continuously retreating the scope of UK powers by further devolution to Holyrood to appease such sentiment does nothing to stabilise the politics of the Union long-term, even if it buys a few months of 'listening' headlines in the very short-term.
Agreed. Sadly.
I'm genuinely unsure on this. We need more polling but I suspect the figures are still pretty tight and it's quite hard to know how firm the Yes/No feelings are.
Figures may be tight, but the reasons support for Indy are so high, the sense of difference between the realms which is exaggerated but felt honestly, the lack of willingness to give and take in the Union on all sides, I don't see that going away, and chances are it will only increase.
I was against it previously, but we needed some sort of Federal system some while ago.
Scottish Gov't has 42 days to amend it's named person policy. Given it passed by a wide margin the first time round I expect the Gov't will amend the legislation rather than scrapping it.
A wide margin? It was unanimous ( with the Conservatives 'doing a Labour ' and abstaining)
It wasn't unanimous then. But the point remains, clearly the same thing with tweaks will get through fine if they want.
Remember that they no longer have a majority. Which might just focus a few minds... (well it should)
@BBCPhilipSim: Breaking: The Supreme Court has ruled that the Scottish Government's Named Person scheme is "unlawful".
I believe that this makes a second Independence referendum inevitable: - N. Sturgeon.
Well done the Supreme Court.
Go on Nicola, make our day, have a referendum on indepenence over the tartan Schutzstaffel
Sadly, at present, I see Scottish independence as inevitable
Yes, I came to this conclusion a few years ago. I think separation will actually be good for all of us... We'll probably have much better relations post Scottish independence than we do right now. It will ease many of the tensions north and south of the border.
The Destiny of Man is to unite, not to divide. If you keep on dividing you end up as a collection of monkeys throwing nuts at each other out of separate trees. T H White. Once and Future King
We're becoming the monkeys throwing nuts. Relations between England and Scotland won't be better after independence - any more than Brexit will resolve anything between what's left of the UK and Europe.
Meanwhile, in Spain they're celebrating the fact that unemployment has fallen to 20%.
I'm always slightly sceptical of the Spanish unemployment numbers: the proportion of people in work has increased significantly since 1999, yet unemployment has doubled.
Correct - there is a huge amount of under the counter employment and I'd guess the true rate is now around 12/13% - bad but a lot better than 6 years ago. The bigger problem is the uneven wage distribution - public sector/banks, etc seem to do very well in terms of both hours and pay while the rest really struggle. Here in Andalucia typical annual wages are around €15000 or less! And tax is more than in the UK.
It's a classic example of how legislating to make the State a better servant of the individual can end up working out the other way round.
The SNP probably think it will give parents more help and advice on call. In reality, it will attract new busybody recruits who have very clear ideas about what good parenting is and enjoy hectoring others, and far too many named persons will be unable to resist checking up on children on their list and using the resources and powers of the State to take action if they object to anything the parent is doing to raise their child.
Mr. 43, I never said that! [My pen name is Thaddeus White].
The Chinese have a nice saying: The empire, long divided, must unite. The empire, long united, must divide.
The idea of ever closer union is demented. It bears no relation to mankind's psychology or history. If we acted on a purely rational basis, devoid of sentiment, we'd have everyone in the world fed, watered and kept in a state of sound accommodation. But we're apes. Not angels.
The US has a low employment and unemployment rate if memory serves, with vast numbers of disengaged/inactive.
If you look at the US employment rate, it has not increased anything like as much as unemployment has fallen, which supports your view about an increasing cohort of discouraged/inactive workers.
Meanwhile, in Spain they're celebrating the fact that unemployment has fallen to 20%.
I'm always slightly sceptical of the Spanish unemployment numbers: the proportion of people in work has increased significantly since 1999, yet unemployment has doubled.
It's a classic example of how legislating to make the State a better servant of the individual can end up working out the other way round.
The SNP probably think it will give parents more help and advice on call. In reality, it will attract new busybody recruits who have very clear ideas about what good parenting is and enjoy hectoring others, and far too many named persons will be unable to resist checking up on children on their list and using the resources and powers of the State to take action if they object to anything the parent is doing to raise their child.
Very, very few people are going to be hired to be Named Persons. In the vast majority of cases it will be existing health visitors , social workers ot head teachers.
It is simply an exercise to unify the otherwise disconnected groups that might be informed about problems a child moght be having to avoid 'why was his obvious warning sign missed ' style situations .
Councils across the country (from Tory run Ayrshire to the Highlands and Islands) already run the scheme.
@BBCPhilipSim: Breaking: The Supreme Court has ruled that the Scottish Government's Named Person scheme is "unlawful".
I believe that this makes a second Independence referendum inevitable: - N. Sturgeon.
Well done the Supreme Court.
Go on Nicola, make our day, have a referendum on indepenence over the tartan Schutzstaffel
Sadly, at present, I see Scottish independence as inevitable simply because I don't think there is any field of policy in which a majority of Scots would accept a UK decision if it were different to an exclusively Scottish one. And the SNP are masters at fostering division over this.
Continuously retreating the scope of UK powers by further devolution to Holyrood to appease such sentiment does nothing to stabilise the politics of the Union long-term, even if it buys a few months of 'listening' headlines in the very short-term.
Agreed. Sadly.
I'm genuinely unsure on this. We need more polling but I suspect the figures are still pretty tight and it's quite hard to know how firm the Yes/No feelings are.
I wouldn't bet a penny on Sindy at the moment.
Last time around the old folk were worried about their pensions and the debt and currency questions were not satisfactorily resolved.
With oil at less than $50 a barrel, the sums will again prove a problem.
The level of entanglement (social/currency/debt/family/land/infrastructure) with the rest of the UK is far greater than the UK's entanglement with the EU.
Mr. 43, I never said that! [My pen name is Thaddeus White].
The Chinese have a nice saying: The empire, long divided, must unite. The empire, long united, must divide.
The idea of ever closer union is demented. It bears no relation to mankind's psychology or history. If we acted on a purely rational basis, devoid of sentiment, we'd have everyone in the world fed, watered and kept in a state of sound accommodation. But we're apes. Not angels.
As Sir Pterry has postulated, humans should aspire to be the place where the falling angel meets the rising ape.
@BBCPhilipSim: Breaking: The Supreme Court has ruled that the Scottish Government's Named Person scheme is "unlawful".
I believe that this makes a second Independence referendum inevitable: - N. Sturgeon.
Well done the Supreme Court.
Go on Nicola, make our day, have a referendum on indepenence over the tartan Schutzstaffel
Sadly, at present, I see Scottish independence as inevitable simply because I don't think there is any field of policy in which a majority of Scots would accept a UK decision if it were different to an exclusively Scottish one. And the SNP are masters at fostering division over this.
Continuously retreating the scope of UK powers by further devolution to Holyrood to appease such sentiment does nothing to stabilise the politics of the Union long-term, even if it buys a few months of 'listening' headlines in the very short-term.
Agreed. Sadly.
I'm genuinely unsure on this. We need more polling but I suspect the figures are still pretty tight and it's quite hard to know how firm the Yes/No feelings are.
Figures may be tight, but the reasons support for Indy are so high, the sense of difference between the realms which is exaggerated but felt honestly, the lack of willingness to give and take in the Union on all sides, I don't see that going away, and chances are it will only increase.
I was against it previously, but we needed some sort of Federal system some while ago.
Ah yes - agreed on the Federalism just not sure Scotland would vote for full blown independence for the sake of staying in the EU. It makes no sense.
The US has a low employment and unemployment rate if memory serves, with vast numbers of disengaged/inactive.
We've the same issue in the UK. We're just better at massaging the figures.
If you make it hard to collect unemployment benefit, you get fewer people registering as unemployed!
Our employment rate is 58%, which is the same as the US and Germany's, worse than Canada, the Netherlands or Switzerland, and better than France, Italy and Spain.
It's a classic example of how legislating to make the State a better servant of the individual can end up working out the other way round.
The SNP probably think it will give parents more help and advice on call. In reality, it will attract new busybody recruits who have very clear ideas about what good parenting is and enjoy hectoring others, and far too many named persons will be unable to resist checking up on children on their list and using the resources and powers of the State to take action if they object to anything the parent is doing to raise their child.
Uncut has learned that House of Commons Speaker, John Bercow, is considering action to strip Labour of the title, Her Majesty’s Opposition, if Jeremy Corbyn wins the leadership election and the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP) remains on strike, leaving the bulk of front bench roles unfilled.
Uncut has learned that House of Commons Speaker, John Bercow, is considering action to strip Labour of the title, Her Majesty’s Opposition, if Jeremy Corbyn wins the leadership election and the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP) remains on strike, leaving the bulk of front bench roles unfilled.
The US has a low employment and unemployment rate if memory serves, with vast numbers of disengaged/inactive.
We've the same issue in the UK. We're just better at massaging the figures.
I wouldn't be so hard on the UK figures, they are a lot more detailed than what comes out of Europe and fairly transparent. It is easy to work out unemployment in the UK as it is just a function of active people less employed people. The massaging of unemployment figures in the UK is not in the figures but the tax credits system which makes otherwise unprofitable businesses viable so people are able to declare themselves self-employed even though their business is only marginally profitable.
"Judges say some proposals breach rights to privacy and a family life under the European Convention on Human Rights.
The court has given the Scottish government 42 days to rectify the legislation."
Perhaps the ECHR actually does have some uses then... (just not many)
I'm really not reading this as the defeat for the SNP others here (And on twitter) seem to think it is - court has said to "amend", not scrap.
It is a bad law and the court has said go back and take another look. That is a victory for common sense and a defeat for creeping state intervention. Not a specific party issue as far as I am concerned
@BBCPhilipSim: Breaking: The Supreme Court has ruled that the Scottish Government's Named Person scheme is "unlawful".
I believe that this makes a second Independence referendum inevitable: - N. Sturgeon.
Well done the Supreme Court.
Go on Nicola, make our day, have a referendum on indepenence over the tartan Schutzstaffel
Sadly, at present, I see Scottish independence as inevitable simply because I don't think there is any field of policy in which a majority of Scots would accept a UK decision if it were different to an exclusively Scottish one. And the SNP are masters at fostering division over this.
Continuously retreating the scope of UK powers by further devolution to Holyrood to appease such sentiment does nothing to stabilise the politics of the Union long-term, even if it buys a few months of 'listening' headlines in the very short-term.
Agreed. Sadly.
I'm genuinely unsure on this. We need more polling but I suspect the figures are still pretty tight and it's quite hard to know how firm the Yes/No feelings are.
Figures may be tight, but the reasons support for Indy are so high, the sense of difference between the realms which is exaggerated but felt honestly, the lack of willingness to give and take in the Union on all sides, I don't see that going away, and chances are it will only increase.
I was against it previously, but we needed some sort of Federal system some while ago.
Ah yes - agreed on the Federalism just not sure Scotland would vote for full blown independence for the sake of staying in the EU. It makes no sense.
It's not for that sake exactly - it's just yet another area of difference (this one actually significant) and an area where citizens of one country of the UK no longer wish to be bound by the collective decision of the whole set of countries. It was 55-45 last time, it doesn't need to shift all that much to succeed.
Uncut has learned that House of Commons Speaker, John Bercow, is considering action to strip Labour of the title, Her Majesty’s Opposition, if Jeremy Corbyn wins the leadership election and the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP) remains on strike, leaving the bulk of front bench roles unfilled.
It's a classic example of how legislating to make the State a better servant of the individual can end up working out the other way round.
The SNP probably think it will give parents more help and advice on call. In reality, it will attract new busybody recruits who have very clear ideas about what good parenting is and enjoy hectoring others, and far too many named persons will be unable to resist checking up on children on their list and using the resources and powers of the State to take action if they object to anything the parent is doing to raise their child.
"Judges say some proposals breach rights to privacy and a family life under the European Convention on Human Rights.
The court has given the Scottish government 42 days to rectify the legislation."
Perhaps the ECHR actually does have some uses then... (just not many)
I'm really not reading this as the defeat for the SNP others here (And on twitter) seem to think it is - court has said to "amend", not scrap.
It is a bad law and the court has said go back and take another look. That is a victory for common sense and a defeat for creeping state intervention. Not a specific party issue as far as I am concerned
The jurisdiction is almost always to amend, not to scrap - that's how our Human Rights Jursidiction operates.
The US has a low employment and unemployment rate if memory serves, with vast numbers of disengaged/inactive.
We've the same issue in the UK. We're just better at massaging the figures.
If you make it hard to collect unemployment benefit, you get fewer people registering as unemployed!
Our employment rate is 58%, which is the same as the US and Germany's, worse than Canada, the Netherlands or Switzerland, and better than France, Italy and Spain.
Hmm, the employment rate is 74.5% for 16-65, I doubt it is that much lower for all people 16 and above, where do you get 58% from?
Uncut has learned that House of Commons Speaker, John Bercow, is considering action to strip Labour of the title, Her Majesty’s Opposition, if Jeremy Corbyn wins the leadership election and the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP) remains on strike, leaving the bulk of front bench roles unfilled.
"Judges say some proposals breach rights to privacy and a family life under the European Convention on Human Rights.
The court has given the Scottish government 42 days to rectify the legislation."
Perhaps the ECHR actually does have some uses then... (just not many)
I'm really not reading this as the defeat for the SNP others here (And on twitter) seem to think it is - court has said to "amend", not scrap.
Hey, for opponents of the SNP that's as close to a victory they get! Although yes, it does seem to be a tweaking rather than scrapping situation will occur, everyone will claim victory.
Uncut has learned that House of Commons Speaker, John Bercow, is considering action to strip Labour of the title, Her Majesty’s Opposition, if Jeremy Corbyn wins the leadership election and the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP) remains on strike, leaving the bulk of front bench roles unfilled.
Is this just spin or clickbait for Bercow taking soundings on what to do in the event of a Labour split, which seems an elementary precaution seeing how long it has been rumoured.
The US has a low employment and unemployment rate if memory serves, with vast numbers of disengaged/inactive.
We've the same issue in the UK. We're just better at massaging the figures.
I wouldn't be so hard on the UK figures, they are a lot more detailed than what comes out of Europe and fairly transparent. It is easy to work out unemployment in the UK as it is just a function of active people less employed people. The massaging of unemployment figures in the UK is not in the figures but the tax credits system which makes otherwise unprofitable businesses viable so people are able to declare themselves self-employed even though their business is only marginally profitable.
I'm not being 'hard' insomuch as I'm pointing out that we have a long tradition of fiddling with unemployment numbers.
About 15% of the workforce are now classed as self-employed; as you say, one wonders how many are running viable businesses. Around 6% of the workforce are claiming long term sick.
"Judges say some proposals breach rights to privacy and a family life under the European Convention on Human Rights.
The court has given the Scottish government 42 days to rectify the legislation."
Perhaps the ECHR actually does have some uses then... (just not many)
I'm really not reading this as the defeat for the SNP others here (And on twitter) seem to think it is - court has said to "amend", not scrap.
It is a bad law and the court has said go back and take another look. That is a victory for common sense and a defeat for creeping state intervention. Not a specific party issue as far as I am concerned
The jurisdiction is almost always to amend, not to scrap - that's how our Human Rights Jursidiction operates.
It's like a defeat in Parliament, it rarely leads to an act being scrapped, however it is an embarrassment and will cause a significant change in the approach taken under the Act to the data protection.
"Judges say some proposals breach rights to privacy and a family life under the European Convention on Human Rights.
The court has given the Scottish government 42 days to rectify the legislation."
The State has a responsibility for keeping children safe. I don't think there's a problem with the State nominating a single contact with responsibility for the child's welfare. The problem with this legislation is that this person can act arbitrarily (ie without any specific cause for concern) and can interview the child without the agreement or knowledge of the parent, nor are they obliged to justify any actions they take to the parent. If they deal with these points, it should be OK.
I thought it inevitable this legislation would be struck down under Article 8 of the ECHR. I would have been surprised the government went ahead with it, except they have the arrogance of an untrammelled majority.
Uncut has learned that House of Commons Speaker, John Bercow, is considering action to strip Labour of the title, Her Majesty’s Opposition, if Jeremy Corbyn wins the leadership election and the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP) remains on strike, leaving the bulk of front bench roles unfilled.
Yes, it looks like bollocks to me. Whilst Bercow might well be concerned at the breakdown of normal parliamentary process which arises from Labour's civil war, what can he actually do about it even if wanted to do something and felt it was appropriate? There is no other party with sufficient MPs to constitute an alternative opposition.
[I did prefer the Law Lords. Sounded nice and medieval, rather than aping America].
The Supreme Court of Judicature Act of 1873 says hello
That never made it onto the statue books, did it?
Yes it did, it would still be a Bill rather than an Act otherwise. It is in effect largely still in force, too - it has been repealed but reenacted in subsequent Acts culminating in the Supreme Court Act 1981.
This is where it gets complicated. The Supreme Court as defined in the 1873 Act means the High Court plus the Court of Appeal, but *not* the House of Lords. (There were bits of the Act which dealt with the HoL, because Gladstone hated it, but they were torpedoed in 1876). So when we decided to call the HoL (technically, the Judicial Committee of the HoL) the Supreme Court, that made the nomenclature very weird and the Supreme Court Act 1981 was retrospectively renamed the Senior Courts Act 1981 - afaik the only time a statute has been renamed.
This is the old problem that if we have something new, we tend to give it the same name as something similar but actually not the same. Big weight? Call it a ton(ne) like the others. Better to have renamed the HoL the Sapient Jurisprudes of Tharg or some such, and avoided the confusion.
Uncut has learned that House of Commons Speaker, John Bercow, is considering action to strip Labour of the title, Her Majesty’s Opposition, if Jeremy Corbyn wins the leadership election and the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP) remains on strike, leaving the bulk of front bench roles unfilled.
Yes, it looks like bollocks to me. Whilst Bercow might well be concerned at the breakdown of normal parliamentary process which arises from Labour's civil war, what can he actually do about it even if wanted to and felt it was appropriate to do something? There is no other party with sufficient MPs to constitute an alternative opposition.
The PLP could start answering to a new leader and new leader of the opposition, a de facto split, but we are a long way from that.
I think is Corbyn wins at least some of the PLP will come in behind him.
The US has a low employment and unemployment rate if memory serves, with vast numbers of disengaged/inactive.
We've the same issue in the UK. We're just better at massaging the figures.
I wouldn't be so hard on the UK figures, they are a lot more detailed than what comes out of Europe and fairly transparent. It is easy to work out unemployment in the UK as it is just a function of active people less employed people. The massaging of unemployment figures in the UK is not in the figures but the tax credits system which makes otherwise unprofitable businesses viable so people are able to declare themselves self-employed even though their business is only marginally profitable.
I'm not being 'hard' insomuch as I'm pointing out that we have a long tradition of fiddling with unemployment numbers.
About 15% of the workforce are now classed as self-employed; as you say, one wonders how many are running viable businesses. Around 6% of the workforce are claiming long term sick.
Nobody seems to get to the bottom of what all these new self employed people are doing.
There are conspiracy theories about it being a way to claim certain benefits etc, but I have a feeling it might be a bit like ZHC for "professional" types i.e. they had a job and with the downturn companies have said we could employ that service on a consultancy / ad-hoc basis and so people have gone from full time employed with a particular company to a one man band company providing that (obviously minus all the perks).
Meanwhile, in Spain they're celebrating the fact that unemployment has fallen to 20%.
I'm always slightly sceptical of the Spanish unemployment numbers: the proportion of people in work has increased significantly since 1999, yet unemployment has doubled.
It's a classic example of how legislating to make the State a better servant of the individual can end up working out the other way round.
The SNP probably think it will give parents more help and advice on call. In reality, it will attract new busybody recruits who have very clear ideas about what good parenting is and enjoy hectoring others, and far too many named persons will be unable to resist checking up on children on their list and using the resources and powers of the State to take action if they object to anything the parent is doing to raise their child.
Very, very few people are going to be hired to be Named Persons. In the vast majority of cases it will be existing health visitors , social workers ot head teachers.
It is simply an exercise to unify the otherwise disconnected groups that might be informed about problems a child moght be having to avoid 'why was his obvious warning sign missed ' style situations .
Councils across the country (from Tory run Ayrshire to the Highlands and Islands) already run the scheme.
Future candidates for the roles (when existing incumbents resign, move or retire) will be attracted by it.
Your second paragraph explains precisely the logic behind the proposal and precisely why I see it as a threat. Government departments linking up to dig into children is bad news - it will start evidence based and end on hunches based on intuition, personal prejudice or vendetta, or demographic profile.
There will be many instances of State overreach once it gets going.
It's a classic example of how legislating to make the State a better servant of the individual can end up working out the other way round.
The SNP probably think it will give parents more help and advice on call. In reality, it will attract new busybody recruits who have very clear ideas about what good parenting is and enjoy hectoring others, and far too many named persons will be unable to resist checking up on children on their list and using the resources and powers of the State to take action if they object to anything the parent is doing to raise their child.
"Judges say some proposals breach rights to privacy and a family life under the European Convention on Human Rights.
The court has given the Scottish government 42 days to rectify the legislation."
The State has a responsibility for keeping children safe. I don't think there's a problem with the State nominating a single contact with responsibility for the child's welfare. The problem with this legislation is that this person can act arbitrarily (ie without any specific cause for concern) and can interview the child without the agreement or knowledge of the parent, nor are they obliged to justify any actions they take to the parent. If they deal with these points, it should be OK.
I thought it inevitable this legislation would be struck down under Article 8 of the ECHR. I would have been surprised the government went ahead with it, except they have the arrogance of an untrammelled majority.
No. It's the responsibility of parents and families to keep children safe.
Disapointing podcast. Your experts are pro May, pro Davidson, pro Tory and anti Labour. They trot out as if it were relevation mere conventional wisdom and then wonder why the polling industry is held in such disregard.
The task in analysis is to identify the trends which point to the future not just recite the headlines results from the present.
Uncut has learned that House of Commons Speaker, John Bercow, is considering action to strip Labour of the title, Her Majesty’s Opposition, if Jeremy Corbyn wins the leadership election and the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP) remains on strike, leaving the bulk of front bench roles unfilled.
The Official Opposition is simply the largest party presence not in government. If Labour splits then it seems the key question would be who is 2nd official opposition party (which gains some minor rights to speak etc). Could be SNP if split leaves Corbyn with less than 54 MPs.
How can she call an election without looking foolish? A vote of No confience in yourself and then defeat the next government 14 days thereafter. Its nonsense.
"Judges say some proposals breach rights to privacy and a family life under the European Convention on Human Rights.
The court has given the Scottish government 42 days to rectify the legislation."
The State has a responsibility for keeping children safe. I don't think there's a problem with the State nominating a single contact with responsibility for the child's welfare. The problem with this legislation is that this person can act arbitrarily (ie without any specific cause for concern) and can interview the child without the agreement or knowledge of the parent, nor are they obliged to justify any actions they take to the parent. If they deal with these points, it should be OK.
I thought it inevitable this legislation would be struck down under Article 8 of the ECHR. I would have been surprised the government went ahead with it, except they have the arrogance of an untrammelled majority.
No. It's the responsibility of parents and families to keep children safe.
Obviously the main responsibility for looking after children lies with the parents. Nevertheless the State has a specific responsibility for protecting a child's safety, unless we abolish all Social Work departments and allow parents to do whatever they like with their children.
So it comes down to a question of how interventionist the State should be in protecting children. It's an arbitrary line but in my view, and in the view of the judges, this legislation overstepped that line.
Comments
http://no2np.org/health-visitors-visit-11-times-new-govt-guidance-reveals/
"Families will be under “surveillance” as new Government guidance reveals that health visitors will make a record 11 home visits to monitor not just the health and development of a baby, but also a range of personal details about parents, including finances and mental health.
Under the Named Person scheme health visitors will also act as a Named Person for 0 – 5s, and this latest 64-page document published last week discloses an extensive checklist by which families should be ‘assessed’ during the visits.
The Scottish Government’s £41.6 million Universal Health Visiting Pathway Scotland: Pre-Birth to Pre-School programme sets out a strict schedule of 8 visits within the child’s first year and 3 between 13 months and 5 years, with each visit lasting up to an hour and a half."
A NO2NP spokesman said: “Much of this is gobbledygook. But, alongside the talk of ‘Health Plan Indicators’, ‘salutogenic approaches’ and ‘human ecology’, some things come through loud and clear.
“Firstly, this calls itself a surveillance programme – how could 11 visits by the age of four with questions about family finance, TV time and sun cream use be considered anything else?
“Following this guidance threatens to turn health visitors into family managers. And health visitors will be typing up a wide range of extremely private information into a state database.
“Secondly, consent is not required for information sharing with or by a Named Person to promote ‘wellbeing’, even where there is a duty of confidentiality. The document says consent shouldn’t even be sought in case it’s refused and the parent-health visitor relationship is damaged. Fundamental principles of consent are being thrown aside, which is what we’ve been saying all along is part and parcel of the Named Person scheme.”.
Liz Smith MSP said: “This completely undermines the trust within family relationships and is exactly the reason for the increasing fears about the Named Person and the nanny state.”
Theresa Fyffe, Director of the Royal College of Nursing Scotland, said the plan would “help children and their families get support if they need it”, but added: “However, we have significant concerns about implementing the Named Person scheme.”
#Brexitgoingwell
Would have happened Brexit or no Brexit tbh - all banking heading online..
https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2015-0216-press-summary.pdf
Continuously retreating the scope of UK powers by further devolution to Holyrood to appease such sentiment does nothing to stabilise the politics of the Union long-term, even if it buys a few months of 'listening' headlines in the very short-term.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/video/2016/jul/27/the-left-is-not-dead-heres-how-we-come-back-fighting-video
Who put this man in charge?
Fingers crossed for them both
They are about as reliable as reports on average earnings of Greeks.
I still think we should offer to accept any areas that don't vote for Sindy into England
Indeed.
Here in non-NP-yet Scotland we had 3 health visitor visits in the first 6 months, just doing the 27 and 30 month development checks now so that's a couple nore visits before they are 3 plus a smattering of other visitor appointments.
So once again NO2NP (formed mostly of groups who unironically write about the dangers of the contraception industry) are just chucking out cntextless guff to create a scare story.
The court has given the Scottish government 42 days to rectify the legislation."
The SNP probably think it will give parents more help and advice on call. In reality, it will attract new busybody recruits who have very clear ideas about what good parenting is and enjoy hectoring others, and far too many named persons will be unable to resist checking up on children on their list and using the resources and powers of the State to take action if they object to anything the parent is doing to raise their child.
It's a classic example of how legislating to make the State a better servant of the individual can end up working out the other way round.
The SNP probably think it will give parents more help and advice on call. In reality, it will attract new busybody recruits who have very clear ideas about what good parenting is and enjoy hectoring others, and far too many named persons will be unable to resist checking up on children on their list and using the resources and powers of the State to take action if they object to anything the parent is doing to raise their child.
-------------------------------------------------------
It's a pretty sinister piece of legislation, by any standards.
Except Spain where, except for a brief period from 2005 to 2007, the employment ratio has never been higher. Yet the country also reports some of the highest levels of unemployment in the world.
I was against it previously, but we needed some sort of Federal system some while ago.
We're becoming the monkeys throwing nuts. Relations between England and Scotland won't be better after independence - any more than Brexit will resolve anything between what's left of the UK and Europe.
'Scottish Tory council has run 'Named Person' scheme for 5 years without problems'
http://tinyurl.com/gljwqgh
The Chinese have a nice saying: The empire, long divided, must unite. The empire, long united, must divide.
The idea of ever closer union is demented. It bears no relation to mankind's psychology or history. If we acted on a purely rational basis, devoid of sentiment, we'd have everyone in the world fed, watered and kept in a state of sound accommodation. But we're apes. Not angels.
It is simply an exercise to unify the otherwise disconnected groups that might be informed about problems a child moght be having to avoid 'why was his obvious warning sign missed ' style situations .
Councils across the country (from Tory run Ayrshire to the Highlands and Islands) already run the scheme.
Last time around the old folk were worried about their pensions and the debt and currency questions were not satisfactorily resolved.
With oil at less than $50 a barrel, the sums will again prove a problem.
The level of entanglement (social/currency/debt/family/land/infrastructure) with the rest of the UK is far greater than the UK's entanglement with the EU.
Our employment rate is 58%, which is the same as the US and Germany's, worse than Canada, the Netherlands or Switzerland, and better than France, Italy and Spain.
Uncut has learned that House of Commons Speaker, John Bercow, is considering action to strip Labour of the title, Her Majesty’s Opposition, if Jeremy Corbyn wins the leadership election and the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP) remains on strike, leaving the bulk of front bench roles unfilled.
http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2016/07/27/speaker-poised-to-strip-labour-of-designation-as-her-majestys-opposition-in-autumn/#more-21006
I can't decide if the poison dwarf's contemplated decision is sound or not.
It would force the PLP to either split or to at least pretend to support Corbyn. Angus Miseryguts must be rubbing his hands together with glee.
Mr. kle4, now that really would be a mixed marriage
Don't go putting any money on this...
About 15% of the workforce are now classed as self-employed; as you say, one wonders how many are running viable businesses. Around 6% of the workforce are claiming long term sick.
I thought it inevitable this legislation would be struck down under Article 8 of the ECHR. I would have been surprised the government went ahead with it, except they have the arrogance of an untrammelled majority.
NEW THREAD NEW THREAD
This is where it gets complicated. The Supreme Court as defined in the 1873 Act means the High Court plus the Court of Appeal, but *not* the House of Lords. (There were bits of the Act which dealt with the HoL, because Gladstone hated it, but they were torpedoed in 1876). So when we decided to call the HoL (technically, the Judicial Committee of the HoL) the Supreme Court, that made the nomenclature very weird and the Supreme Court Act 1981 was retrospectively renamed the Senior Courts Act 1981 - afaik the only time a statute has been renamed.
This is the old problem that if we have something new, we tend to give it the same name as something similar but actually not the same. Big weight? Call it a ton(ne) like the others. Better to have renamed the HoL the Sapient Jurisprudes of Tharg or some such, and avoided the confusion.
I think is Corbyn wins at least some of the PLP will come in behind him.
There are conspiracy theories about it being a way to claim certain benefits etc, but I have a feeling it might be a bit like ZHC for "professional" types i.e. they had a job and with the downturn companies have said we could employ that service on a consultancy / ad-hoc basis and so people have gone from full time employed with a particular company to a one man band company providing that (obviously minus all the perks).
Your second paragraph explains precisely the logic behind the proposal and precisely why I see it as a threat. Government departments linking up to dig into children is bad news - it will start evidence based and end on hunches based on intuition, personal prejudice or vendetta, or demographic profile.
There will be many instances of State overreach once it gets going.
(Edit: which is the highest it has been since at least 1971)
http://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/employmentandemployeetypes/timeseries/lf24/lms
The task in analysis is to identify the trends which point to the future not just recite the headlines results from the present.
https://constitution-unit.com/2016/06/29/what-if-labour-splits/
The Official Opposition is simply the largest party presence not in government. If Labour splits then it seems the key question would be who is 2nd official opposition party (which gains some minor rights to speak etc). Could be SNP if split leaves Corbyn with less than 54 MPs.
So it comes down to a question of how interventionist the State should be in protecting children. It's an arbitrary line but in my view, and in the view of the judges, this legislation overstepped that line.