<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Funfairs</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.stevecooke.org/2009/01/08/funfairs/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.stevecooke.org/2009/01/08/funfairs/</link>
	<description>Political Musings from the Greater Manchester.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 11 Mar 2010 16:28:09 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6-beta1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Richard Carvath</title>
		<link>http://www.stevecooke.org/2009/01/08/funfairs/comment-page-1/#comment-23417</link>
		<dc:creator>Richard Carvath</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Jan 2009 23:09:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.stevecooke.org/?p=495#comment-23417</guid>
		<description>I guess you (and/or the tories) should keep the heat up on the Cabinet over this one.  What are the alternatives to this particular operator?  Are Labour actually being prudent in retaining this operator because [if indeed this is the case] they know that they&#039;ll have to write off the debt otherwise?  Has this operator got the Cabinet by the you-knows... and if so, how and why was such a situation allowed to arise?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I guess you (and/or the tories) should keep the heat up on the Cabinet over this one.  What are the alternatives to this particular operator?  Are Labour actually being prudent in retaining this operator because [if indeed this is the case] they know that they&#8217;ll have to write off the debt otherwise?  Has this operator got the Cabinet by the you-knows&#8230; and if so, how and why was such a situation allowed to arise?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Martin O'Neill</title>
		<link>http://www.stevecooke.org/2009/01/08/funfairs/comment-page-1/#comment-23416</link>
		<dc:creator>Martin O'Neill</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Jan 2009 21:36:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.stevecooke.org/?p=495#comment-23416</guid>
		<description>should the council really continue to throw money an operator that has let them down so expensively in the past?

I think where Labour are concerned the above is a bit of a rhetorical question....

At least we should have another chance to see the New Labour magical calculator, turn any deficit or loss into profit and gain...or your money back (well...)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>should the council really continue to throw money an operator that has let them down so expensively in the past?</p>
<p>I think where Labour are concerned the above is a bit of a rhetorical question&#8230;.</p>
<p>At least we should have another chance to see the New Labour magical calculator, turn any deficit or loss into profit and gain&#8230;or your money back (well&#8230;)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
