04 February 2026
One week ago today, in a cosy room largely insulated from dissent, the Greater Manchester Police, Fire and Crime Panel voted to approve an additional £14.4 million for Greater Manchester Police (GMP). The panel—almost entirely white, and far from representative of the communities most affected by policing—listened as the Mayor made his deeply-selective case for the increase. While one councillor briefly raised limited concerns, there was no substantive discussion of alternatives, no positive vision for public safety, and no acknowledgement of police racism, misogyny, violence and harm. The £14.4 million figure itself went entirely unmentioned. The panel simply nodded along dutifully.
A meeting “in public” that sidelined the public
Amongst other patronising and condescending remarks, the Chair repeatedly reminded us that this was a meeting in public, not a public meeting. We already understood the format, but the tone made clear that public presence was (barely) tolerated, not welcomed, and that critical voices were viewed as an irritation. There are effectively no channels through which the public can meaningfully challenge these decisions, and this is only compounded by a panel that behaves more like a rubber stamp than a body of scrutiny. In such a context, dissent is not only unwelcome, but actively managed out.
When members of the public attempted to speak, we were met with threats of removal, and a manner that was openly patronising. The response escalated dramatically when two TAU vans and multiple officers were dispatched to the venue—simply because members of the public dared to speak in, what ought to be, a democratic forum.
The irony could not be starker. We were repeatedly told GMP is overstretched, yet they could summon a heavy tactical response at a moment’s notice, for something as minor as speaking up. The police arrived to shield the panel from scrutiny, while the panel simultaneously shielded GMP by approving further funding: an arrangement that signified a friendly alliance (rather than a relationship of checks and balances).
Misplaced optimism and selective storytelling
The Mayor highlighted a survey showing 65% public confidence in GMP. What he did not highlight was the more troubling figure: one-third of the public do not have trust or confidence in the police—a finding that should have prompted serious reflection. Instead, he celebrated the consultation result being “closer” than previous years, even though—by a very small margin, and despite the GMCA’s best efforts to engineer a yes vote— the majority still voted against the increase, as they have consistently done in recent years.
Burnham’s claim that racially minoritised communities would support the increase – saying that “communities would not thank [the panel] for not backing GMP with the funding” — displayed a striking level of arrogance and ignorance. It is clear that he neither understands, nor centres, diverse communities and their experiences.
We put forward an alternative—one rooted in care and community
Our position has been clear: the £14.4 million would be far better spent invested in communities, not policing. That case still stands, and we will continue making it.
Our briefing Fund Communities (Not Policing), sets out costed, constructive alternatives for how the same funds could support community centres, income security, migrant justice work, youth provision, emergency housing and survivor support. Contributions come from:
- Greater Manchester Living Income Campaign
- Kids of Colour
- Migrant Justice Manchester
- A local community centre
- Manchester Women’s Justice Collective
You can read the full briefing here.
We will continue this work
Today’s vote may be over, but our work is not. We will continue to organise, to scrutinise, and to build the case for funding communities rather than expanding policing.
We hope others across Greater Manchester will join us—next year, and every year that public money continues to be directed toward enforcement instead of care.