15 January 2026
Greater Manchester Combined Authority (GMCA) is currently running a public survey on the proposed police precept increase. Though the results have consistently been ignored in recent years, it is presented as a consultation—an opportunity for residents to have their say. However, serious flaws in the design of the survey raise fundamental questions about its legitimacy and purpose.
At the heart of the problem is a basic methodological issue. Respondents are asked whether they “support” a list of ten priorities in the Greater Manchester Police and Crime Plan, and are required to select at least one option in order to proceed. As the consultation initially appeared – before a challenge from some of our members – there was no meaningful way to register opposition to the precept without first endorsing one or more policing priorities. In other words, it was impossible to say “no” to the tax increase without simultaneously generating data that could be presented as support for policing.
This is not a minor technical oversight. Any survey that requires respondents to agree with at least one predefined option before they can continue is structurally biased. It constrains dissent by design, and ensures that opposition is filtered through apparent endorsement. A survey constructed in this way would not pass even the most basic standards of ethical or methodological review.
Following our challenge, GMCA has now added an “other” option. However, this does not resolve the underlying problem. Many respondents will already have completed the survey without this option being available, meaning that the dataset is internally inconsistent. Some responses were gathered under one set of constraints, others under another. This alone draws the reliability of the results into question. More importantly, the late addition of an “other” box does nothing to address the core issue: the survey still fails to meaningfully test public support for policing as the appropriate response to the issues listed.
While the items are formally described as policing priorities, many are in fact broad social problems that most people would reasonably agree are serious concerns. “Tackling drug, alcohol and wider addictions”, “keeping children and young people safe”, or “reducing gender-based violence” are not controversial propositions. The survey therefore risks being read not as a question about policing, but as a question about whether these problems exist or matter.
Crucially, the survey never asks the question that actually matters: whether respondents believe the police are the most appropriate, effective, or desirable institution to address these issues. There is no opportunity to say, for example, that addiction is a serious problem but should be addressed primarily through health services; or that young people’s safety requires investment in housing, education, and youth provision rather than policing; or that gender-based violence demands survivor-led, specialist support rather than criminal justice responses.
By collapsing recognition of social harm into apparent support for policing, the survey converts concern into consent. Agreement that a problem exists is quietly transformed into endorsement of a particular institutional response. This is a sleight of hand, and it fundamentally undermines the validity of the findings.
These design flaws are compounded by the broader framing of the consultation, which strongly nudges respondents towards supporting the increase. The implication is that the rise is inevitable, but that public backing would be useful. This is particularly troubling given recent history. In previous years, residents have consistently voted against precept increases when consulted—only to see those views overridden regardless. Against that backdrop, a consultation process that constrains dissent appears less like an exercise in democratic engagement and more like an attempt to manufacture legitimacy.
Public consultation should be about listening, especially when decisions involve taxation and public spending in the context of a cost-of-living crisis. When surveys are designed in ways that limit opposition, blur the meaning of consent, and are altered partway through the process, they erode trust rather than build it.
If Greater Manchester Combined Authority is serious about democracy, transparency, and accountability, it must do better than this. A fair consultation would clearly distinguish between recognising social problems and endorsing policing as the solution. It would allow respondents to reject the precept and the logic of policing outright. And it would treat public opposition as something to be reckoned with, rather than managed or neutralised.
Until then, claims that this survey reflects genuine public support for further investment in policing should be treated with extreme caution.