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!

ah, the default 'must call names' post. good show.

and then ...

You are so on the spectrum...

Makes me look sane.

I'm sorry, are you suggesting I should have stated definitively about a hypothetical, fictional scenario?

No. The level of privatisation would be lower. Since there would have been no free schools, no NHS commissioning groups and no outsourcing of core police activities to that flagship of the private sector that is G4S.

Labour's recession? Interesting. What did Labour do to bring down Lehmann Brothers?
As for unemployment, it jumped in 2008. You know, when the worlds banks collapsed. It was actually coming down slightly when the Tories took office. Then it went up by around 300,000. Not as a result of an economic collapse across the world, but as a result of Tory government policies which, as I said, affected the poorer areas the hardest.

How much of UK income do the top 1% receive? How much of UK wealth do the top 1% own? Have you factored in the regressive nature of other taxes such as VAT? Have you factored in the regressive nature of costs such as energy, food and water etc?
When you do those things I reckon the quarter of income tax they pay is a little generous.

But, like the other right-wing Tory apologists on this thread, nice attempt to deviate from your Tory Chancellor making a fool of himself on a train.

Maybe you should co-ordinate better with The Video Ref and Ajw. Then you all wouldn't look as idiotic as your Chancellor by quoting a Thatcher think-tank and tax figures that only back up how rich the top 1% are. I'm sure Ajw can find some polls you can use, only if they're on Wikipedia, mind.

Oh and a nice little poll just for Ajw - the latest polling average puts the Tories 10 points down.
But even that won't deviate the thread away from what an idiot Osborne made of himself on a train.

I'm neither a Tory apologist or trying to deviate, with me what i hate about people who are partisan supporters of any party are the fact they can point to a million and one facts on why their party and their politics are so good and act like little children going 'ner na ner na ner ner' when every an opposite party does even the most minor indiscretion or something they perceive as wrong, it's turned me away from politics big time, i used to love watching PMQ's years ago, now i just find it puerile guff, it's counter productive nonsense.

All parties working against each other through day to day life just to get one up on the other.

If one party has a policy and the other party actually believe in it, stand up, applaud the Government and actually go, 'ok we'll give you that one, it's a good one' rather than lambast in public and support in private.

My point is, regardless of the guys wealth, the place he was educated, his stature in Government we are all human, we all make mistakes ALL OF US, every single one of the billions of people that have lived or ever lived made a mistake.

FFS i don't want politicians talking about someone calling someone a pleb or someone in wrong class on a train, i want then to knuckle down and do someone worth while and act like an adult while they do it.