XL bullies and knife crime: Do Parliament have their priorities straight?
A major function of the UK parliament is its role as a legislature, which involves input on law-making processes and reactions to legislative proposals put forward by the government (Thompson, 2020, p.43). This piece of writing does not intend to question parliament’s overall effectiveness in such processes. Instead, the purpose of this blog post is to highlight inconsistencies in the effectiveness of its legislative process by comparing the amendments of bills concerning XL bullies and knife crime.
For a long time the overriding attitude towards the UK parliament is that it is a weak institution with a declining influence, spotlighted boldly by the workings of the legislative process. With cabinet proposals making up a significant majority of the legislative agendas and the proposals adopted (Benton and Russell, 2009, p.6), there is no wonder that parliament faces perceptions of unfavourable power-relations. However, in more recent years and with a focus on the less visible impacts of parliament, there has been evidence of the effective influence of parliament. Analysis by Cowley and Russell into the thousands of divisions within parliament, showed that keeping issues off the agenda and setting parameters for a bill (Cowley and Russell, 2009, p.130) were key capabilities of the UK parliament. Thus, parliament is integral to the legislative process, making the amendments of bills crucial indicators of the effectiveness of parliamentary influence.
Amendments to the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, saw the banning of the American XL bully breed of dog as a result of an increase in reports of severe attacks by that breed of dog (Ares and Sturge, 2023, p.2). Combined with calls for changes to legislation from a parliamentary petition in January 2023, the dog breed was added to the list of banned breeds as of December 2023 (Ares and Sturge, 2024, p.7). Recognition of the threat of the dog breed and responsiveness to the wants of the public led to the diligent amendment of the bill within the space of a year, showing parliament’s ability to act effectively in the interests of the government and citizens.
However, can the same effectiveness be observed for other calls for policy changes? Urges for the ban of certain types of machetes and large knives remain ongoing, with Idris Elba becoming the latest public figure to advocate for the immediate banning of them (Rawlinson, 2024). Recent amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill have increased police powers, increased penalties, and introduced new offences all in relation to knife crime, however, banning machetes and other large knives is a measure that will be addressed when ‘parliamentary time allows’ (Government UK, 2023). Between April 2021 and March 2022, 282 homicides caused by a sharp instrument were recorded across England and Wales (ONS, 2023), whilst there have been 32 deaths caused by dog attacks since 2019 across England and Wales (ONS, 2023). Statistics give a clear picture of the bigger threat.
Of course, it is important to note that the issue of knife crime is a complicated, multifaceted problem that requires more than just the work of parliament. Also, parliament has made it clear that this matter is high up on their agenda (Government UK, 2024), but with around 50,000 knife crime offences being committed each year (ONS, 2023), legislative amendments need to happen sooner. Discussions of intended changes can be seen as an amplification of what is known as the expectation gap, which describes the difference between public expectations of what should be delivered, and what realistically can be delivered (Flinders and Kelso, 2011, p.252). In this comparison, parliamentary responses to XL bully issues have inflated expectations and subsequently undermined public confidence (Flinders and Kelso, 2011, p.252) when the same urgency was not delivered on the matter of machetes and other large knives. In the context of knife crime, criticisms can be made that society is expecting too much from parliament to begin with (Flinders, 2014, p.5), as the problem runs so deeply in many aspects of social life. However, banning dog breeds is not a straightforward matter either, yet was met with a swift response from parliament. Though this explanation is slightly oversimplified, the expectation gap indicates the importance of parliament to deliver on proposals, as a failure to do so can have serious implications for the politics of the country.
As mentioned before, the issue of knife crime is one that requires layers of response which will not be fixed overnight. This blog post is not intended to examine the details that go into parliamentary legislative processes, but rather how the different responses to the two examples may lead to serious questioning from the public. There is no doubt that parliament can effectively fulfil its legislative roles, however, inconsistency has overshadowed examples of effectiveness thus lowering public confidence in parliament to deal with the most fatal matters.
Bibliography
Ares, E. & Sturge, G., (2024). The Ban on XL Bully dogs. House of Commons Library
Benton, M. & Russell, M. (2012) Assessing the Impact of Parliamentary Oversight Committees: The Select Committees in the British House of Commons. Parliamentary affairs. 66 (4), pp.772–797
Flinders, M. & Kelso, A. (2011), Mind the Gap: Political Analysis, Public Expectations, and the Parliamentary Decline Thesis. The British Journal of Politics & International Relations, 13(1), pp.249-268
GOV.UK. (n.d.). Government bans machetes and zombie knives. [online] Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-bans-machetes-and-zombie-knives.
GOV.UK. (n.d.). New law to ban zombie-style knives and machetes. [online] Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-law-to-ban-zombie-style-knives-and-machetes#:~:text=Zombie%2Dstyle%20knives%20and%20machetes%20will%20be%20outlawed%20under%20legislation [Accessed 3 Feb. 2024].
Office for National Statistics (2023). Appendix tables: Homicide in England and Wales – Office for National Statistics. [online] Ons.gov.uk. Available at: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/datasets/appendixtableshomicideinenglandandwales.
Office for National Statistics. (n.d.). Deaths by dog attack in the UK 2019 to 2023 including all context of death – Office for National Statistics. [online] Available at: https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transparencyandgovernance/freedomofinformationfoi/deathsbydogattackintheuk2019to2023includingallcontextofdeath.
Olson, D.M., (2015). Democratic Legislative institutions: a comparative view: a comparative view. Routledge.
Rawlinson, K. (2024). Idris Elba calls for immediate ban on machetes and ‘zombie’ knives. The Guardian. [online] 8 Jan. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/jan/08/idris-elba-calls-for-immediate-ban-on-machetes-and-zombie-knives.
Russell, M, & Cowley, P., (2016) The policy power of the Westminster parliament Governance, 29(1), pp. 121-137
Russell, M. & Benton, M., (2009). Assessing the policy impact of parliament: Methodological challenges and possible future approaches. In Paper for PSA Legislative Studies Specialist Group Conference, 24(1), pp.1-27
Thompson, L., (2020). UK parliament. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 43–56
Flinders, M., (2014). Explaining democratic disaffection: Closing the expectations gap. Governance, 27(1), pp.1-8.
This article makes a valid and interesting point in noting that swift and diligent amending and passing of a bill can be made possible by Parliament when they all ‘put in the work’ – as seen by the Amendment to the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. This displays that when a bill takes longer to amend on certain issues, this could be down to the interests of individuals as well as party politics who may not all be sharing the same vision for the bill. Whilst in contrast, when it is an issue that is affecting the immediate safety of citizens throughout the UK, this can seemingly be put aside in the best interests of others. When using this to compare with the slow movement on changes to knife crime policy, it is interesting to see in tandem with the stats how amendments and controls have not be introduced despite growing calls for this to be done and an ever growing number of incidents. The UK in comparison to other countries across the world does not have a totalling number of deaths caused by knife crime. However, the stats provided in the article by the ONS shows that the death toll is considerably higher due to knife-related incidents rather than dog attacks – and yet there is still no changes. Urgency is required by Parliament on this issue, I would be interested to find out further information as to why this has not yet occurred even though they claim it is high up on the agenda. The government’s main priority should be to protect those at home in the UK, and introducing tighter regulations on machetes and other large knives is a matter which is important to citizens. I would have been interested to see what the author thinks beneficial actions could be on this issue from Parliament, or what changes in relation to knife crime regulation could be introduced to gain the same swift response that was seen with the banning of the XL Bully dogs.
this blog post caught my attention as it is an extremely relevant issue. i found it useful that the author explained exactly what the legislative function of Parliament is so that the readers are aware of how Parliament is relevant when discussing issues such as the XL bully ban and knife crime. the author is clearly knowledgeable on both subjects as they clearly explain the issues with each and what Parliament is or isn’t doing to rectify this. the article recognises that despite common criticisms, Parliament actually can swiftly and effectively legislate on issues that will affect the whole of the UK- amending the bill regarding dog breeds in just under a year is no mean feat. In my opinion, this could prove that the bicameral system of the UK government is useful and listens to the needs of the people. I find the comparison to knife crime very interesting, particularly since the author reveals that there have been far more incidents to do with these weapons than to do with the XL bully breed. knife crime in the Uk is now 75% higher in 2022/23 than it was in 2012/13. this proves that it is an ongoing issue and the author of the blog is right to suggest that perhaps the legislative functions of Parliament are being misplaced to tackle less dangerous issues. to improve this blog, i would have been interested to see what the general public think about such a swift overturn on the bill for XL bullies, yet seemingly very little progress being made on the consistent issue of knife crime.
This blog post is well-structured with clear sections discussing the different aspects of such difficult issues. The headline of the blog is very clear in setting out what the blog is about. The introduction effectively and clearly sets the stage by explaining what the purpose of the blog is and effectively communicates that the focus of the blog is to highlight parliaments inconsistences in the effectiveness of its legislative process rather than questioning parliament’s overall effectiveness. Furthermore throughout the blog sources have been used effectively to create substance to the arguments of the author. This is furthered by the effective incorporation of statistics and evidence to support the argument such as the comparison of deaths caused by dogs which as stated is significantly less than deaths caused by knife crime. This usage of evidence strengthens the writers argument that their is clear inconsistences in the priorities of the law making process. The acknowledgement of the complexity and multifaceted issue of knife crimes demonstrates the writers understanding of such an important issue. Overall this blog is very well-written, clear and concise offering thoughtful analysis of such important issues and effectively highlighting the need for greater consistency in parliament’s legislative processes.
The author of this blog post has been able to capture my interest as they discussed two extremely pressing issues in British politics – knife crime and concerns around XL bullies. As a reader, the introduction readily sets out the author’s intention to bring awareness of parliament’s inability to fulfil its legislative function to their full extent. This blog post has highlighted the negative opinion held towards the UK parliament, deriving from the fact it appears as both an inadequate institution and one lacking in authority. Despite this view, the author has been able to identify that parliament can be an effective legislator, with regards to amending legislation, as seen by the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. This blog post signifies the validity of parliament’s legislative function as it was able to amend legislation to include the XL bully breed under the list of banned breeds in less than a year. Furthermore, the author’s inclusion of the government’s lack of effective legislation to tackle knife crime is extremely effective. In particular, the author has referred to the fact the parliament ‘undermined’ the public by enacting swift legislation in dealing with XL bullies but has been unable to legislate in a productive manner in relation to dangerous weapons. Conclusively, this blog post contains a compelling argument and raises important questions regarding parliament’s inconsistent effectiveness in producing legislation to safeguard citizens.
This blog post highlights an important aspect of Parliamentary power- agenda setting. It is hypocritical that Parliament would pass a law that bans a certain breed of dog in a year, but allow knife crime related bills to sit idle, when knife-related violence is clearly a more pervasive threat. The statistics used in the post were particularly convincing in proving this point. This blog mainly focuses on the question of time efficiency and the expectation gap in relation to Parliament. It would have also been relevant to include information about the power of agenda-setting in terms of the policy cycle. While the policy cycle is complex and stages can overlap, who decides what gets attention in Parliament and with what level of urgency is essential to understanding how Parliament functions. Steven Luke’s theory on the three dimensions of power is pervasive in understanding how institutions of power can set social limits to limit the public’s ability to imagine alternative policy routes and discussions. As the recent dog attacks on children and other UK citizens have gained significant traction in the media, it has subsequently gained significant traction in the priority list of Parliament. By bringing issues to the forefront or pushing them down the list of issues to be addressed, Parliament can set limits to discussion and action.
This article is well structured and extremely informative as well as being based on an interesting topic. The author provides excellent examples and has a very broad knowledge on the subjects of both knife crime and the XL Bully ban. Overall, a fantastic article!
Good clarification of the blog’s purpose in the introduction. It is interesting to see how Parliament can act following public demand in some areas, such as strengthening laws regarding dangerous dogs. An important point is made that this effectiveness doesn’t always stretch to other areas, such as banning machetes, which is especially potent considering the number of deaths as a result of sharp weapons. The blog post is concluded brilliantly by highlighting the inconsistencies present and how this could affect public perception of Parliament. This subject is especially pertinent as data shows that knife crime is still on the rise: https://news.sky.com/story/as-hainault-attack-victim-is-named-data-shows-knife-crime-is-on-the-rise-13126830
This post immediately caught my attention from its clear title. It highlights an issue which very much prevalent, using recent examples. The author outlines clearly the purpose of the blog post and helps the reader by defining one of the key functions of the parliament. This is important for the reader as it sets the tone for the blog post and gives a preview into what will be spoken about. The author backs up their points with statistics, validating their arguments. I think that the use of the two issues and comparisons between the two highlight key problems within the parliament with regards to how the UK parliament deal with issues which are high up on their agenda. Overall, this post is informative and the author shows a great understanding of the topic.
This post was incredibly engaging from the title to the content displayed within this post instantly capturing my attention and encouraging me to continue reading. This post was very well structured and referenced which added to the content displayed within this post. This post delves into the opinions held by the public in relation to the inadequateness of the British parliament, but also identifies that parliament is an effective legislator in relation to dangerous dogs using the Dangerous Dogs act to demonstrate this. However, the author also proves that the British Parliament can be ineffective when it came to the knife crime epidemic while being effective with a less serious issue like dangerous dog legislation. The author could have also engaged with politicians themselves being out of touch with the demographics that are mostly affected by these crimes which could contribute to the blog post.