Dismay At Proposed Cabinet

[Old Man River]

Thankfully, very capable Finance Minister Korn will oversee the Commerce Minister and take the larger economic helm along with Abhisit. Ultimately, the Govt realises it must get up and functioning to take on some daunting tasks asap and will have to pick a better time to tackle the long-standing and ever-damaging quota system.

Isn't it Korn that force the phone companies to sent out those stupid SMS. It is getting Mark V in trouble, sending out 10 million baht worth of free SMS.

And what was the problem with this? How is it illegal? It would have been illegal had it been part of a campaign during a national election, but this wasn't a national election now was it? It is just the PTP crying of foul play because someone took there football away.

[samgrowth]

Thankfully, very capable Finance Minister Korn will oversee the Commerce Minister and take the larger economic helm along with Abhisit. Ultimately, the Govt realises it must get up and functioning to take on some daunting tasks asap and will have to pick a better time to tackle the long-standing and ever-damaging quota system.

Isn't it Korn that force the phone companies to sent out those stupid SMS. It is getting Mark V in trouble, sending out 10 million baht worth of free SMS.

And what was the problem with this? How is it illegal? It would have been illegal had it been part of a campaign during a national election, but this wasn't a national election now was it? It is just the PTP crying of foul play because someone took there football away.

If the govt pays for it, it would be fine. However, as far as I learned from the media, the govt gets the message sent out for free. Now the govt owe the phone companies a favour. I guess govt may now announance lowing of concession fee in returns.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2008/12/23...cs_30091636.php

[Old Man River]

Thankfully, very capable Finance Minister Korn will oversee the Commerce Minister and take the larger economic helm along with Abhisit. Ultimately, the Govt realises it must get up and functioning to take on some daunting tasks asap and will have to pick a better time to tackle the long-standing and ever-damaging quota system.

Isn't it Korn that force the phone companies to sent out those stupid SMS. It is getting Mark V in trouble, sending out 10 million baht worth of free SMS.

And what was the problem with this? How is it illegal? It would have been illegal had it been part of a campaign during a national election, but this wasn't a national election now was it? It is just the PTP crying of foul play because someone took there football away.

If the govt pays for it, it would be fine. However, as far as I learned from the media, the govt gets the message sent out for free. Now the govt owe the phone companies a favour. I guess govt may now announance lowing of concession fee in returns.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2008/12/23...cs_30091636.php

I am very aware of the PTP complaint, hence my comment above that "it is just the PTP crying foul play because someone took their football away."

It was sent for free, but it was not illegal because it was not in violation of any written laws (codified law is the basis for Thai law). This was not a national election. From your side, you are assuming that the government owes a certain telecom company a favor, but someone else could just as easily assume that this telecom company, with a large client base in Bangkok (the Democrats stronghold), viewed it as good publicity for them.

I know it doesn't sound right, but a lot of what happens in politics doesn't sound right. Some would say it was good politics and others would say it stinks. Either way, it isn't against the law. The PTP's complaint is more politics at its best (or worst).

[Ricardo]

At least she knows how to run a business with a low cost, high profit formula.

and when things get tough she can give the other minister a massage,maybe thats where greasing the palms comes in handy too.

Perhaps she might have been better placed in a Public Health role, given her expertise in promoting bathing amongst the general public in her establishment, does anyone have any relevant pictures to illustrate her prior career ? Gods forbid that they might post such images here !

Guess where the net cabinate meeting will be held? Maybe Poseidon.

Is that what's meant by 'Cleaning Up Politics ?!"

[samgrowth]

Thankfully, very capable Finance Minister Korn will oversee the Commerce Minister and take the larger economic helm along with Abhisit. Ultimately, the Govt realises it must get up and functioning to take on some daunting tasks asap and will have to pick a better time to tackle the long-standing and ever-damaging quota system.

Isn't it Korn that force the phone companies to sent out those stupid SMS. It is getting Mark V in trouble, sending out 10 million baht worth of free SMS.

And what was the problem with this? How is it illegal? It would have been illegal had it been part of a campaign during a national election, but this wasn't a national election now was it? It is just the PTP crying of foul play because someone took there football away.

If the govt pays for it, it would be fine. However, as far as I learned from the media, the govt gets the message sent out for free. Now the govt owe the phone companies a favour. I guess govt may now announance lowing of concession fee in returns.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2008/12/23...cs_30091636.php

I am very aware of the PTP complaint, hence my comment above that "it is just the PTP crying foul play because someone took their football away."

It was sent for free, but it was not illegal because it was not in violation of any written laws (codified law is the basis for Thai law). This was not a national election. From your side, you are assuming that the government owes a certain telecom company a favor, but someone else could just as easily assume that this telecom company, with a large client base in Bangkok (the Democrats stronghold), viewed it as good publicity for them.

I know it doesn't sound right, but a lot of what happens in politics doesn't sound right. Some would say it was good politics and others would say it stinks. Either way, it isn't against the law. The PTP's complaint is more politics at its best (or worst).

I see where you are coming from. Weighing the arguments, it would sound (to me at least) like it is in the grey area. If the complain by PTP ever goes to court, I am confident that the verdict will be 5 vs 4. Who get the 5 and who get the 4 will depend on the heat of the politics at the time of the judgement. Example, the side that squeeze the country's balls (like seize Swamply) will have a one vote advantage.

Edited December 24, 2008 by samgrowth

[animatic]

At least she knows how to run a business with a low cost, high profit formula.

and when things get tough she can give the other minister a massage,maybe thats where greasing the palms comes in handy too.

Perhaps she might have been better placed in a Public Health role, given her expertise in promoting bathing amongst the general public in her establishment, does anyone have any relevant pictures to illustrate her prior career ? Gods forbid that they might post such images here !

Guess where the net cabinate meeting will be held? Maybe Poseidon.

Is that what's meant by 'Cleaning Up Politics ?!"

No. More like getting the pipes cleaned.

I did see Burin Kantanabutra complaining on the OpEd page of one journal.

So seems SOMEONE noticed this.

[animatic]

Thankfully, very capable Finance Minister Korn will oversee the Commerce Minister and take the larger economic helm along with Abhisit. Ultimately, the Govt realises it must get up and functioning to take on some daunting tasks asap and will have to pick a better time to tackle the long-standing and ever-damaging quota system.

Isn't it Korn that force the phone companies to sent out those stupid SMS. It is getting Mark V in trouble, sending out 10 million baht worth of free SMS.

And what was the problem with this? How is it illegal? It would have been illegal had it been part of a campaign during a national election, but this wasn't a national election now was it? It is just the PTP crying of foul play because someone took there football away.

If the govt pays for it, it would be fine. However, as far as I learned from the media, the govt gets the message sent out for free. Now the govt owe the phone companies a favour. I guess govt may now announance lowing of concession fee in returns.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2008/12/23...cs_30091636.php

I am very aware of the PTP complaint, hence my comment above that "it is just the PTP crying foul play because someone took their football away."

It was sent for free, but it was not illegal because it was not in violation of any written laws (codified law is the basis for Thai law). This was not a national election. From your side, you are assuming that the government owes a certain telecom company a favor, but someone else could just as easily assume that this telecom company, with a large client base in Bangkok (the Democrats stronghold), viewed it as good publicity for them.

I know it doesn't sound right, but a lot of what happens in politics doesn't sound right. Some would say it was good politics and others would say it stinks. Either way, it isn't against the law. The PTP's complaint is more politics at its best (or worst).

I see where you are coming from. Weighing the arguments, it would sound (to me at least) like it is in the grey area. If the complain by PTP ever goes to court, I am confident that the verdict will be 5 vs 4. Who get the 5 and who get the 4 will depend on the heat of the politics at the time of the judgement. Example, the side that squeeze the country's balls (like seize Swamply) will have a one vote advantage.

In most countries the head of government can demand that

ALL communications channels be used to communicate with the people.

As PM presumptive, with nothing more than a caretaker Cabinet, he is effectively head of government.

In this case it is a two way street, he is also asking for feedback, on a voluntary basis.

These telephone concessions were given BY the government to the telecom companies,

and can be recinded and re-asigned. They are the property of the Thai People, to be

controlled by the government if need be, not the Telcom companies corporate fifedoms.

If the USA or French Presidents or Gordon Brown Or Nick Sarkozy wish to address their nations,

they take over radio and TV for the 1/2 hour it takes and the stations / networks MUST comply.

Since cellphones have by FAR the greatest and surest reach to people of voting age in Thailand,

this was a very logical way to contact the electorate, and it is an innovative way to give them

a way to contact him back IF THEY CHOOSE TO.

This invasion of personal space argument is a red herring. It's one side too angry to want to

hear anything he has to say and looking for anyway to stick it to him.

Sour grapes at best, and 'SOP political bullshit ".

Personally I think it was a brilliant thing to do, no matter WHO did it.

[samgrowth]

In most countries the head of government can demand that

ALL communications channels be used to communicate with the people.

As PM presumptive, with nothing more than a caretaker Cabinet, he is effectively head of government.

Agreed. If the message is of national security, at a time of national desaster, or to congratulate the King on his birthday.

I have no problem with Mark V (or Korn on Mark's behalf) send out the message AND PAID FOR IT (may it be tax payer money). However, why should Mark V (or the govt) send a 15 million worth of personal SMS for FREE? Please read the message, and tell me it is not a personal message. How could the govt ask such a big (financially) favour from the phone companies. What if the phone companies don't comply, will their license be removed. What will the phone companies ask for a return of favours?

If this thing is not stop or regulated, what would happen next? Govt twist the arm of phone companies to send out more and more propaganda messages, to make sure that the people receives one sided opinions.

http://blog.4amexpat.com/2007/06/sms-used-as-propaganda.html

http://www.textually.org/textually/archive...olitics.htm?p=7

[animatic]

In most countries the head of government can demand that

ALL communications channels be used to communicate with the people.

As PM presumptive, with nothing more than a caretaker Cabinet, he is effectively head of government.

Agreed. If the message is of national security, at a time of national disaster, or to congratulate the King on his birthday.

I have no problem with Mark V (or Korn on Mark's behalf) send out the message AND PAID FOR IT (may it be tax payer money). However, why should Mark V (or the govt) send a 15 million worth of personal SMS for FREE? Please read the message, and tell me it is not a personal message. How could the govt ask such a big (financially) favour from the phone companies. What if the phone companies don't comply, will their license be removed. What will the phone companies ask for a return of favours?

If this thing is not stop or regulated, what would happen next? Govt twist the arm of phone companies to send out more and more propaganda messages, to make sure that the people receives one sided opinions.

http://blog.4amexpat.com/2007/06/sms-used-as-propaganda.html

http://www.textually.org/textually/archive...olitics.htm?p=7

Financially it is pretty small hit for the telecoms.

A very minor fraction of the bandwith that is allocated.

And we get sent all sorts of unsolicited crap via SMS anyway, that you can't stop,

so the privacy issue is a red herring too.

I understand that only ONE person is needed to do this:

Type the message and send to all accounts.

You neglect to mention that

if people respond, the telecoms MAKE 3 baht per message...

I don't think they are complaining.

Considering the closeness of civil war and the impending world financial crisis about the whack Thailand,

getting a fast start and implementing a direct feedback system with thai people from the git go,

could be considered as aiding national security, at a time of 'impending' national disaster.

[samgrowth]

Financially it is pretty small hit for the telecoms.

A very minor fraction of the bandwith that is allocated.

And we get sent all sorts of unsolicited crap via SMS anyway, that you can't stop,

so the privacy issue is a red herring too.

Same argument here. I went to the airport to catch a flight to London. I know that jumbo the flight is only 90% full, with a few seats left. The flight is leaving with those empty seats anyway. So I approach the sales counter and buy a standby seat, and the airline say 40,000 Baht. WHAT I shouted. It should only cost the airline no more than 2,000 Baht to have my incremental weight on that plane. Even with 100% margin, the airline should not charged me more than 4,000 Baht. 40,000 Baht is extortion. The airline explained that they rather fly empty seats than filling it up at deep discount to normal price. Else many will not buy ticket in advance and queue up for left over seat, which will be a lose of potential revenue fare.

You are quite right that there is almost no cost to the phone companies. SMS are queue and only transmitted when the spare bandwidth is available, which is going to be idle anyway, if the message is not being sent (like airline empty seats). But what about the lost revenue to the phone companies, 15 miilion Bahts of lose revenue, which they would have to answer to their shareholders.

Not all the message receivers get the message free. My guess is that there is at least 10,000 Thai phone roaming overseas like mine. I spend 50% of my time travelling overseas on business. I have to pay for every message I received while overseas. I have instructed the phone companies to stop spam, and they did. However, this SMS got through, and I AM PAYING FOR IT. Should I send Mark V the bill to recover mt losses.

I know it sound stuip. If Mark break the law, however minor (even UK Queen Mother gets speeding tickets http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page4899.asp), he should be accounted for it. This is a case of abusing power by govt on private sector. According to the LAW, govt can only received free gifts of upto a limited value. I am sure the value is not 15 million Baht.

Samak has broken the law (moonlight as a cook), and the law keeper stick to the book; which become a big joke to the world press. Why should mark V be above the law, however small the offence might be?

[henryalleman]

Surayud Chulanont was a mass murderer and he was Prime Minister

And that has to do with the new PM that is supposed to clean out coruption appointing a PIMP as commerce minister HOW???

You are an intelligent man, so you should know that in an coalition government its the parties who delegate and choose the minister not the MP. So blame the party who delegate her not the PM.

[Plus]

Blame the system that doesn't put any safeguards for Minister selection, no minimum qualifications or experience, no rules of any kind, no job interviews, no transparency in the process, nothing.

[animatic]

Blame the system that doesn't put any safeguards for Minister selection, no minimum qualifications or experience, no rules of any kind, no job interviews, no transparency in the process, nothing.

And we know who has for long attempted to emasculate what little checking ever WAS implemented,

so he could keep his cronies at the trough...

The PM must deal with who he is presented with. Or the house of cards falls.

Since most all Thai governments have been shakey houses of cards.

He CAN and they regularly do "Reshuffle" the cabinet, out with the dead wood

and in with someone maybe a bit better and a second chance to negociate a better player.

Edited December 26, 2008 by animatic

[Plus]

Abhisit doesn't have a strong hand to negotiate (I think he just doesn't have a stong hand, period). Coalitiont partners know that he depends on them, not the other way around.

If he performs well and there are clear prospects of winning the elections if they stick with him, he'd be able to do whatever he wants.

For now he has to accept the reality and make sure his partners do not abuse their suddenly found power.

My personal expectations are quite low, btw. The real victory would be for him to form the government after new elections despite all the crap.

[tig28]

Surayud Chulanont was a mass murderer and he was Prime Minister

And that has to do with the new PM that is supposed to clean out coruption appointing a PIMP as commerce minister HOW???

You are an intelligent man, so you should know that in an coalition government its the parties who delegate and choose the minister not the MP. So blame the party who delegate her not the PM.

If what you said had any foundation in truth your condescending comment MIGHT have a little justification. As it demonstrably does not ... I would suggest you remove reference to intelligence from your replies.

Integrity is the key --- along with strength of character ---- the leader of any coalition always has the power to choose what he finds acceptable and that which he does not. It is similar to the many judgment calls every adult is called upon to make at many points of his life. You either have the backbone to do what you know is right ... or you do not.

The minor coalition members can ask or demand whatever they wish ---- it is the coalition majority (in particular their leader) who MUST decide just how low he is prepared to go. Having made that decision --- it is totally his doing --- not ,as you seem to suggest, simply some unfortunate situation forced upon him. A choice was made.

[henryalleman]

If what you said had any foundation in truth your condescending comment MIGHT have a little justification. As it demonstrably does not ... I would suggest you remove reference to intelligence from your replies.

Integrity is the key --- along with strength of character ---- the leader of any coalition always has the power to choose what he finds acceptable and that which he does not. It is similar to the many judgment calls every adult is called upon to make at many points of his life. You either have the backbone to do what you know is right ... or you do not.

The minor coalition members can ask or demand whatever they wish ---- it is the coalition majority (in particular their leader) who MUST decide just how low he is prepared to go. Having made that decision --- it is totally his doing --- not ,as you seem to suggest, simply some unfortunate situation forced upon him. A choice was made.

First I like to point out to you that the democrats don't have an majority of seats inside the new majority. Secondly I've seen much more strange bedfellows in coalition governments in democratic countries. Thirdly you don't seems to comprehend how a coalition government is formed. Fourth politics is about trying to achieve the highest possible.

If you don't mind I kindly advise you to read the novel "The 3 kingdom by Luo Guanzhong" and some books from Sun Tzu, maybe after that you will understand a litle bit more about politics

[permanent_disorder]

If you don't mind I kindly advise you to read the novel "The 3 kingdom by Luo Guanzhong" and some books from Sun Tzu, maybe after that you will understand a litle bit more about politics

i really like it if somebody recommend some books. that makes it also more clear from what kind of political camp, from what political corner someones arguments are coming from.

but your books now seems to be a little bit exotic, can you explain more why a study of ""The 3 kingdom by Luo Guanzhong" and some books from Sun Tzu" would help us to understand a little bit more about politics?

[A_Traveller]

^ Whilst the poster is. I'm sure able to answer for themselves, I'll simply comment that The 3 Kingdoms does provide a broad view of the political turbulence of the period plus, and one presumes most relevantly the use of deceit, fraud, and trickery within strategic frameworks to achieve goals. Sun Tzu's views on the use of deceptive stratagems is, of course, legion.

Regards

PS In this case the use of stratagems relates to the application of a deceptive technique, not a long term goal.

[henryalleman]

If you don't mind I kindly advise you to read the novel "The 3 kingdom by Luo Guanzhong" and some books from Sun Tzu, maybe after that you will understand a litle bit more about politics

i really like it if somebody recommend some books. that makes it also more clear from what kind of political camp, from what political corner someones arguments are coming from.

but your books now seems to be a little bit exotic, can you explain more why a study of ""The 3 kingdom by Luo Guanzhong" and some books from Sun Tzu" would help us to understand a little bit more about politics?

If you read this books you will understand

[tig28]

If what you said had any foundation in truth your condescending comment MIGHT have a little justification. As it demonstrably does not ... I would suggest you remove reference to intelligence from your replies.

Integrity is the key --- along with strength of character ---- the leader of any coalition always has the power to choose what he finds acceptable and that which he does not. It is similar to the many judgment calls every adult is called upon to make at many points of his life. You either have the backbone to do what you know is right ... or you do not.

The minor coalition members can ask or demand whatever they wish ---- it is the coalition majority (in particular their leader) who MUST decide just how low he is prepared to go. Having made that decision --- it is totally his doing --- not ,as you seem to suggest, simply some unfortunate situation forced upon him. A choice was made.

(quote tig28)

First I like to point out to you that the democrats don't have an majority of seats inside the new majority. Secondly I've seen much more strange bedfellows in coalition governments in democratic countries. Thirdly you don't seems to comprehend how a coalition government is formed. Fourth politics is about trying to achieve the highest possible.

If you don't mind I kindly advise you to read the novel "The 3 kingdom by Luo Guanzhong" and some books from Sun Tzu, maybe after that you will understand a litle bit more about politics

"First I like to point out to you that the democrats don't have an majority of seats inside the new majority." Well HENRY I really do need your help here .... please be good enough to provide the numbers for that statement .... I was under the obviously erroneous belief that the democrats were BY FAR the largest party in the coalition ..... but .... you claim so forcefully ....

"Secondly I've seen much more strange bedfellows in coalition governments in democratic countries." That is probably correct ---- but in no way addresses my condemnation of your original foolish post "you should know that in an coalition government its the parties who delegate and choose the minister not the MP. So blame the party who delegate her not the PM." which is obviously incorrect.

"Thirdly you don't seems to comprehend how a coalition government is formed." Well I am really impressed now --- you in your infinite wisdom you can access this ....... amazing!! During my political life my homeland (Australia) was more often than not been governed by a coalition. For one election I managed the campaign of a Federal candidate (successfully). For two elections I was contracted as a consultant (unsuccessful). So Henry I shall back my knowledge of just how coalitions are formed and operated against most.... even against you. I remind you that I can count.

"If you don't mind I kindly advise you to read the novel "The 3 kingdom by Luo Guanzhong" and some books from Sun Tzu, maybe after that you will understand a litle bit more about politics" No.... no Henry .... I don't mind .... but really......

[animatic]

If you don't mind I kindly advise you to read the novel "The 3 kingdom by Luo Guanzhong" and some books from Sun Tzu, maybe after that you will understand a litle bit more about politics

i really like it if somebody recommend some books. that makes it also more clear from what kind of political camp, from what political corner someones arguments are coming from.

but your books now seems to be a little bit exotic, can you explain more why a study of ""The 3 kingdom by Luo Guanzhong" and some books from Sun Tzu" would help us to understand a little bit more about politics?

If you read this books you will understand

Also add

The Prince by Machiavelli.

Benjamin Franklin: An American Life by Walter Issacson.

John Adams by David McCullough

Uses and abuses of power in the political arena.

And not just in Americas or Italy.

[geriatrickid]

It seems to me that the new cabinet is certainly no better than the 2 that preceded them under the alleged Thaksin toadies and in some cases, is significantly worse. This then begs the question, where are all the members of TV that were roundly condemning previous cabinet formulas now that ministers have been selected of dubious qualifications? Convenient absences? In denial? At the end of the day, this cabinet will certainly not respond to the needs of the vast majority of the population, so, hopefully it gets flushed quickly.

[Samuian]

It seems to me that the new cabinet is certainly no better than the 2 that preceded them under the alleged Thaksin toadies and in some cases, is significantly worse. This then begs the question, where are all the members of TV that were roundly condemning previous cabinet formulas now that ministers have been selected of dubious qualifications? Convenient absences? In denial? At the end of the day, this cabinet will certainly not respond to the needs of the vast majority of the population, so, hopefully it gets flushed quickly.

If you pretend to "know it all", why don't you step forward, send an e-mail to the democrats or directly to Abhisit and give him a helping hand, show him which politicians are clean, and which ones he should "employ", wich position they should fill in, you know and don't just blame verbally people here in the forum, simply airing their point of view!

Go ahead, the world needs genuine heroes!

If you know better, do better!

Edited December 27, 2008 by Samuian

[wensiensheng]

Oh the muddle that is Thai politics. At the outset, ObaMark has no option but to work within the existing system....muddle that it is. Whether he can gradually week out those ministers appointed for reasons other than ability and skill sets, we will have to see. For sure, given ObaMarks relience on his coalition partners, it will be a very slow process. And in the meantime, the new Gov't could fall pretty much at any time, if there is the slightest upset in a delicate balance of power.

But, as it was, is how it is and how it will be.

[Plus]

What's wrong with the Cabinet?

Korn is a Finance Minister, working together with exCP exec - certainly better than spa operator Surapong or Suchart who started his job by trying to intimidate the Bank of Thailand, copmletely out of line.

Inerior went to Newin's boy - surely they had election control in mind, Newin's MPs must not be allowed to lose to Phue Thai to keep the coalition going.

Kosit, the Foreign Minister, is a career diplomat, unlike Noppadon (a newbie who single handedly created Preah Vihear crisis) or the other guy who had absolutely no clue about his responsibilities. You can argue that his airport closure comments were inappropriate, but it's his job to overcome the impression that PAD were a bunch of terrorists. He's not obliged to comply with Thaivisa members views or present some alternative reality where Democrats and PAD are politically poles apart. He might tone it down a bit, but he has to convince foreigners that PAD protests were important part of democratic developement one way or another.

There are a couple of bad apples in the Cabinet, but they are flanked by knowledgeable and capable deputies from Democrat party, they won't inflict too much damage.

Oevrall Abhisit's cabinet is miles better than Samak's, and it's likely to work rather than indulge in endless street battles.

[henryalleman]

If what you said had any foundation in truth your condescending comment MIGHT have a little justification. As it demonstrably does not ... I would suggest you remove reference to intelligence from your replies.

Integrity is the key --- along with strength of character ---- the leader of any coalition always has the power to choose what he finds acceptable and that which he does not. It is similar to the many judgment calls every adult is called upon to make at many points of his life. You either have the backbone to do what you know is right ... or you do not.

The minor coalition members can ask or demand whatever they wish ---- it is the coalition majority (in particular their leader) who MUST decide just how low he is prepared to go. Having made that decision --- it is totally his doing --- not ,as you seem to suggest, simply some unfortunate situation forced upon him. A choice was made.

(quote tig28)

First I like to point out to you that the democrats don't have an majority of seats inside the new majority. Secondly I've seen much more strange bedfellows in coalition governments in democratic countries. Thirdly you don't seems to comprehend how a coalition government is formed. Fourth politics is about trying to achieve the highest possible.

If you don't mind I kindly advise you to read the novel "The 3 kingdom by Luo Guanzhong" and some books from Sun Tzu, maybe after that you will understand a litle bit more about politics

"First I like to point out to you that the democrats don't have an majority of seats inside the new majority." Well HENRY I really do need your help here .... please be good enough to provide the numbers for that statement .... I was under the obviously erroneous belief that the democrats were BY FAR the largest party in the coalition ..... but .... you claim so forcefully .... I confess I was wrong, the democrats have andeed a majority in the majority, maybe its because my age that my eyes let me down some times reading figures

"Secondly I've seen much more strange bedfellows in coalition governments in democratic countries." That is probably correct ---- but in no way addresses my condemnation of your original foolish post "you should know that in an coalition government its the parties who delegate and choose the minister not the MP. So blame the party who delegate her not the PM." which is obviously incorrect. In this issue I was refering to the European coalition governments where they do like that. Sorry I did not know in Australia its diferent?

"Thirdly you don't seems to comprehend how a coalition government is formed." Well I am really impressed now --- you in your infinite wisdom you can access this ....... amazing!! During my political life my homeland (Australia) was more often than not been governed by a coalition. For one election I managed the campaign of a Federal candidate (successfully). For two elections I was contracted as a consultant (unsuccessful). So Henry I shall back my knowledge of just how coalitions are formed and operated against most.... even against you. I remind you that I can count. Krabphom, Khun chalaat mak maak

"If you don't mind I kindly advise you to read the novel "The 3 kingdom by Luo Guanzhong" and some books from Sun Tzu, maybe after that you will understand a litle bit more about politics" No.... no Henry .... I don't mind .... but really......

[jackspratt]

"Thirdly you don't seems to comprehend how a coalition government is formed." [/color] Well I am really impressed now --- you in your infinite wisdom you can access this ....... amazing!! During my political life my homeland (Australia) was more often than not been governed by a coalition. For one election I managed the campaign of a Federal candidate (successfully). For two elections I was contracted as a consultant (unsuccessful). So Henry I shall back my knowledge of just how coalitions are formed and operated against most.... even against you. I remind you that I can count.

Quite disingenuous tig.

If you are as politically knowledgeable as you claim, you would know that "coalitions" in Australia are of a totally different flavour than those in Thailand, and many other countries.

Only one form of coalition exists - between the Libs ( ) and the Nats ( ), and it is pretty much a given at all federal elections. And the horse trading is also quite formulaic (deputy PM, transport, primary industries, etc etc) - and that has been the case since the 50s.

Very unlike what I imagine happens here.

[Steve2UK]

If what you said had any foundation in truth your condescending comment MIGHT have a little justification. As it demonstrably does not ... I would suggest you remove reference to intelligence from your replies.

Integrity is the key --- along with strength of character ---- the leader of any coalition always has the power to choose what he finds acceptable and that which he does not. It is similar to the many judgment calls every adult is called upon to make at many points of his life. You either have the backbone to do what you know is right ... or you do not.

The minor coalition members can ask or demand whatever they wish ---- it is the coalition majority (in particular their leader) who MUST decide just how low he is prepared to go. Having made that decision --- it is totally his doing --- not ,as you seem to suggest, simply some unfortunate situation forced upon him. A choice was made.

(quote tig28)

First I like to point out to you that the democrats don't have an majority of seats inside the new majority. Secondly I've seen much more strange bedfellows in coalition governments in democratic countries. Thirdly you don't seems to comprehend how a coalition government is formed. Fourth politics is about trying to achieve the highest possible.

If you don't mind I kindly advise you to read the novel "The 3 kingdom by Luo Guanzhong" and some books from Sun Tzu, maybe after that you will understand a litle bit more about politics

"First I like to point out to you that the democrats don't have an majority of seats inside the new majority." Well HENRY I really do need your help here .... please be good enough to provide the numbers for that statement .... I was under the obviously erroneous belief that the democrats were BY FAR the largest party in the coalition ..... but .... you claim so forcefully .... I confess I was wrong, the democrats have andeed a majority in the majority, maybe its because my age that my eyes let me down some times reading figures

"Secondly I've seen much more strange bedfellows in coalition governments in democratic countries." That is probably correct ---- but in no way addresses my condemnation of your original foolish post "you should know that in an coalition government its the parties who delegate and choose the minister not the MP. So blame the party who delegate her not the PM." which is obviously incorrect. In this issue I was refering to the European coalition governments where they do like that. Sorry I did not know in Australia its diferent?

"Thirdly you don't seems to comprehend how a coalition government is formed." Well I am really impressed now --- you in your infinite wisdom you can access this ....... amazing!! During my political life my homeland (Australia) was more often than not been governed by a coalition. For one election I managed the campaign of a Federal candidate (successfully). For two elections I was contracted as a consultant (unsuccessful). So Henry I shall back my knowledge of just how coalitions are formed and operated against most.... even against you. I remind you that I can count. Krabphom, Khun chalaat mak maak

"If you don't mind I kindly advise you to read the novel "The 3 kingdom by Luo Guanzhong" and some books from Sun Tzu, maybe after that you will understand a litle bit more about politics" No.... no Henry .... I don't mind .... but really......

Step right up, folks............ plenty more c-o-l-o-u-r-s to choose from - not to mention italics, bold and other imaginative combinations of point size etc. Let's see if we can make the next version of the above post totally impossible to follow rather than just really, really difficult.

Oh - but please don't use CAPS.......... that's considered bad form and too much like SHOUTING.

[tig28]

"Thirdly you don't seems to comprehend how a coalition government is formed." [/color] Well I am really impressed now --- you in your infinite wisdom you can access this ....... amazing!! During my political life my homeland (Australia) was more often than not been governed by a coalition. For one election I managed the campaign of a Federal candidate (successfully). For two elections I was contracted as a consultant (unsuccessful). So Henry I shall back my knowledge of just how coalitions are formed and operated against most.... even against you. I remind you that I can count.

Quite disingenuous tig.

If you are as politically knowledgeable as you claim, you would know that "coalitions" in Australia are of a totally different flavour than those in Thailand, and many other countries.

Only one form of coalition exists - between the Libs ( ) and the Nats ( ), and it is pretty much a given at all federal elections. And the horse trading is also quite formulaic (deputy PM, transport, primary industries, etc etc) - and that has been the case since the 50s.

Very unlike what I imagine happens here.

Hi JACK

At no stage during the back and fro between HENRY and myself did I ever claim any similarity between politics or coalitions here and in Australia so your point escapes me .... although for the particular matter we were discussing they more than similar --- they are identical.

"The minor coalition members can ask or demand whatever they wish ---- it is the coalition majority (in particular their leader) who MUST decide just how low he is prepared to go. Having made that decision --- it is totally his doing --- not ,as you seem to suggest, simply some unfortunate situation forced upon him. A choice was made."

Re Australia: Whilst it is correct in recent times that cabinet positions were a virtual lock before the election results were known ---- that was due to the long running nature of the Lib/Nat relationship ---- not because of any inherent difference between politicians in two different countries. On occasions real conflict has developed when one partner performed below par and the major party wished to reduce their cabinet influence. Three cornered contests resulted from a lib back-bench revolt over precisely this.

As a relatively non-political individual (have never been a member of any party) I was a non-controversial choice for a position which sought skills other than political. Those skills I have. During my activities in three federal elections I learned quite a bit about how things work but I am no expert.

[jackspratt]

"Thirdly you don't seems to comprehend how a coalition government is formed." [/color] Well I am really impressed now --- you in your infinite wisdom you can access this ....... amazing!! During my political life my homeland (Australia) was more often than not been governed by a coalition. For one election I managed the campaign of a Federal candidate (successfully). For two elections I was contracted as a consultant (unsuccessful). So Henry I shall back my knowledge of just how coalitions are formed and operated against most.... even against you. I remind you that I can count.

Quite disingenuous tig.

If you are as politically knowledgeable as you claim, you would know that "coalitions" in Australia are of a totally different flavour than those in Thailand, and many other countries.

Only one form of coalition exists - between the Libs ( ) and the Nats ( ), and it is pretty much a given at all federal elections. And the horse trading is also quite formulaic (deputy PM, transport, primary industries, etc etc) - and that has been the case since the 50s.

Very unlike what I imagine happens here.

Hi JACK

At no stage during the back and fro between HENRY and myself did I ever claim any similarity between politics or coalitions here and in Australia so your point escapes me .... although for the particular matter we were discussing they more than similar --- they are identical.

"The minor coalition members can ask or demand whatever they wish ---- it is the coalition majority (in particular their leader) who MUST decide just how low he is prepared to go. Having made that decision --- it is totally his doing --- not ,as you seem to suggest, simply some unfortunate situation forced upon him. A choice was made."

Re Australia: Whilst it is correct in recent times that cabinet positions were a virtual lock before the election results were known ---- that was due to the long running nature of the Lib/Nat relationship ---- not because of any inherent difference between politicians in two different countries. On occasions real conflict has developed when one partner performed below par and the major party wished to reduce their cabinet influence. Three cornered contests resulted from a lib back-bench revolt over precisely this.

As a relatively non-political individual (have never been a member of any party) I was a non-controversial choice for a position which sought skills other than political. Those skills I have. During my activities in three federal elections I learned quite a bit about how things work but I am no expert.

I did note your earlier points tig, but it was the one above which I disagreed with.

I am also not sure how much "final say" Aphasit had in the make up of his cabinet. It may well have been a case of accept him, or her, or whoever, or we [insert your coalition partner of choice] will not join the coalition - and we all know what that would have meant.

I doubt there is any politician, be they in Oz, LOS or another place, who would be principled enough to reject the opportunity to become PM by rejecting (relatively) minor demands by potential coalition partners.

But as you correctly point out, coalition fighting in Oz was generally based on the Nats polling badly, and the Lib back benchers questioning why a Nat should have their snout in the trough ahead of an ambitious (and perhaps more talented) Lib.