I understood that Osborne himself had mandated that all civil servants, including MPs, should travel at standard fare, if they wanted to travel 1st class, they had to pay the difference.

Yup he did, We're all in it together dontcha know.

Just some less in it than others.

Turns out to be the complete non-story it was always going to be:

I think it's more the bare faced cheek of trying to get away with sitting in first class without paying the first class fare. If his advisor had immediately paid the upgrade price instead of trying to get away without paying it and hadn't said things like he "can't possibly sit in standard class" then it wouldn't even have been remarked upon in the first place.

And that is the disagreement.

According to statements from his police close protection officer and Virgin Trains he didn't try and avoid the fare. The whole thing seems to have been fuelled by an over-excited journo and mass reverse-snobbery.

I haven't seen what his CPO has said, but that statement from Virgin Trains doesn't discount the journo's statement. It says there was no refusal to pay. It doesn't say there was no attempt to avoid payment. Which is what the journo's statement says, along with Osborne's refusal to sit in standard.

I don't understand why the CPO didn't speak to someone at the station and get it all arranged beforehand then. If there was genuinely a security issue, surely they should have at least done that? I understand Osborne wasn't planning to get that particular train but CPOs do have phones and can speak to people. Its not rocket surgery.

I got on a train at Stockport during the 2010 election campaign, with a first class ticket, but Brown's team had basically taken over the carriage that I was booked in "for security reasons" and there were 2 coppers preventing entry at either end. I would suggest that no matter how unpopular Brown was, that Osborne is perhaps more so, so if security is an issue, the CPO should have at least done something.

And if this was Ed Milliband instead?

Exactly the same treatment for mine.

Trying to get away without paying the proper fare? Then he'd be a pillock too.

Fook all would have happened. Everyone knows that if Labour were in the economy would be tickety boo, we would have near full employment and the masses would have bags of cash to p155 up the wall at the boozer and bookies every weekend.

Are you sulking now ?

It would seem that this is not the first time that this has happened with Osborne. There are stories doing the rounds that he had similar problems (but with no journalist nearby) in May, when the conductor refused to let him simply stay in first without paying.

I can't remember which tabloid had the story yesterday, but will try to find it.

Nope. Because the banks screwed the economy. So we would still struggle. But probably wouldn't have such unemployment, especially in poorer areas. Probably wouldn't have such privatisation of the NHS, police and education. And probably wouldn't be in recession. But hey, as long as we're all in it together then I'm sure the burden will fall fairly across the country and not on the poor, the unemployed, and the disabled. No, really.
But nice diversion away from Osborne making a fool of himself.

Found a report. I had thought it was the [iMirror[/i had picked it up – and it had – but decided instead to link to [url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/georgeosborne/9623740/George-Osborne-caught-in-first-class-with-a-standard-ticket-five-months-ago.htmlthe story[/url a hard left publication.

Depends on your definition of fair.

Contrary to popular opinion, it is the less well off are not being asked to pull their weight.

After tax-credits, (but not housing benefit) are taken into account, a married couple with one earner and 2 children need to earn £22,000 before any net contribution to income taxes is demanded. For a family with 2 earners, the figure is £25,000.

Around 50% of households in the UK make no net contribution to the exchequer whatsoever.

... it's a myth that, for the first time, Save the Children is spending money on helping UK children, while food banks are on the rise.

I assume you're referring to the piece "researched" by the Centre for Policy Studies that concludes that 53.4% of households received more in benefits than they paid in taxes in 2010/11.

A couple of minor little issues:
The CPS is a Tory think-tank setup by Thatcher
In their research, the term "benefits" includes such things as NHS care and education in their calculations.

But again, nice attempt at diverting away from Osborne looking like a fool.

The rich pay enough. Tax them any more and you will get what is happening in France, all the rich people leaving / wanting to leave.

your use of the word 'probably' carries about as much weight as 'a bloke in the pub told me player x is signing for team y'...

the level of privatisation of the nhs, police and education would be exactly the same as it is now.

as for unemployment, in labour's recession (that was nothing to do with them obviously) it jumped 25% ish, in the tories recession (which is most certainly their fault) it's stayed pretty static, perhaps up slightly, but now falling (although they're clearly fudging the figures, probably even shooting claimants).

the burden clearly doesn't fall fairly as according to a bbc article;



so, lets have some numbers, how much should the top 1% pay and the bottom 50% while we're at it.

good for them, following in the footsteps of the nspcc and barnardos.
[urlhttp://order-order.com/2012/09/05/partisan-charity-attack-fronted-by-brown-spin-doctor-justin-forysths-child-poverty-ruse-unravels/[/url

foodbanks are a fantastic idea, vouchers for food? far better than handing over cold hard cash as they can't be exchanged for fags and scratchcards. anyway, they'll be a thing of the past soon when the home insulation army arrive.

I hope you don't get too cold and damp under that bridge, samwire.

Ah. Silly little troll 'thinks' his inability/decision not to pick up on properly-supported arguments isn't spotted by anyone else.

Excellent post.

Oh, another one of the under-the-bridge dwellers has emerged (briefly).

Love it!