Do You Hope The Redshirts Succeed?

[Moonrakers]

The problem for the old elite is that there could be a hundred elections and TRT/PPP/Puea Thai would win all of them.

Oh.

So why did they not win the last election then?

That's their inconvenient truth. If the Thaksin puppets had managed to form a coalition after the last election, they wouldn't be complaining.

Although of course, as you know, they did manage to form a coalition. Their coalition fell apart though allowing the Dem's to form a coalition of their own IN EXACTLY THE SAME WAY that Thaksin's lot did.

[Jingthing]

I meant a winning coalition. Yes, the Thaksinistas almost did. It was close, but in the end they lost. Now they are crying about no elections and no democracy. Its a lie. Could the democratic processes be improved greatly in Thailand. Yes, of course. Is Thaksin coming back forced by a red mob the path to that? Most people, foreigners and Thai, think NOT.

Edited March 11, 2010 by Jingthing

[johndpoole]

I think you need more choices in the poll or add "other" and I bet "other" gets the most vote. There are options to have a more win/win outcome then only one side wins or just not giving a sh@t.

Maybe the better question would be whose ideals do you most agree with. I just hate the win wording. It means there is a loser in which case nothing really changes in terms of ongoing unrest.

[Jingthing]

I think you need more choices in the poll or add "other" and I bet "other" gets the most vote. There are options to have a more win/win outcome then only one side wins or just not giving a sh@t.

Maybe the better question would be whose ideals do you most agree with. I just hate the win wording. It means there is a loser in which case nothing really changes in terms of ongoing unrest.

I think most people DO have a opinion on whether they are supporting the specific red goals of this specific upcoming protest event, or not.

On your wider point, yes, of course, most Thais and foreigners would love for there to be an ultimate peaceful resolution that allows this country to move forward (and an end to this civil war type of madness that has become a national sickness). However, those clinging to the Thaksin power dream may never be open to such a compromise.

You are also falling into the fallacy that this is about red vs. yellow. The majority of both Thais and foreigners are not explicit supporters of EITHER red or yellow.

Edited March 11, 2010 by Jingthing

[Naam]

"Do You Hope The Redshirts Succeed?"

as much as i hope to acquire Syphilis or HIV next week

[johndpoole]

I think you need more choices in the poll or add "other" and I bet "other" gets the most vote. There are options to have a more win/win outcome then only one side wins or just not giving a sh@t.

Maybe the better question would be whose ideals do you most agree with. I just hate the win wording. It means there is a loser in which case nothing really changes in terms of ongoing unrest.

I think most people DO have a opinion on whether they are supporting the specific red goals of this specific upcoming protest event, or not.

On your wider point, yes, of course, most Thais and foreigners would love for there to be an ultimate peaceful resolution that allows this country to move forward (and an end to this civil war type of madness that has become a national sickness). However, those clinging to the Thaksin power dream may never be open to such a compromise.

You are also falling into the fallacy that this is about red vs. yellow. The majority of both Thais and foreigners are not explicit supporters of EITHER red or yellow.

Good point and your opinion "might" be right in terms of people supporting one or the other but my opinion differs ... then again I'm not all that informed on everything. HOWEVER, if the Red Shirts succeed then I am taking that to mean toppling the current government. How is that good for anybody regardless of what they believe and knowing that in another year or two the Yellows or whoever will topple the them.

My personal opinion is that there needs to be elections within a year that are closely monitored and accounted and validated by both sides and neutral non-thai groups. Then even if Thais don't get what they want, they can learn to live with it for 4-years or whatever the term is before the next election. There also needs to be a body that is independent of military and politics to investigate corruption once in office. I feel for Thaksin as he was elected but it is very clear he abused his power and was a crook. But from what I can tell their was no succession plan such as a VP taking over and this in part because of the entire partly allegedly being corrupt. Again, I'm no expert on the subject but I do like the current president and would like to seem him stay in power BUT am very uncomfortable that he was not elected to this position. If he doesn't hold elections sometime in 2010 then I would pretty much be for anybody that advocates having elections even if it meant a communist/socialist dictator as long as that is what the people actually vote for. The US is very divided right now but except for a few nut jobs, we all accept it when are man (or women) is not elected if elections are done even remotely fairly.

[Tedhead]

The problem for the old elite is that there could be a hundred elections and TRT/PPP/Puea Thai would win all of them.

Oh.

So why did they not win the last election then?

In 2001, the TRT party got 40.6% of the popular vote; the next largest party, the Democrat Party got 26.6%.

In 2005, the TRT party got 56.4% of the vote; the next largest, the Democrat Party got 16.1%.

In 2006, the Democrats boycotted the election. TRT got 60.7% of the votes.

In 2007, the TRT party having been dissolved, the PPP got 36.63% of the popular vote; the Democrat Party got 30.30%.

It was only by the constitutional court dissolving the PPP, thereby forcing by-elections and creating a splintering of PPP MPs that the Democrat Party was able to form a coalition.

Those are the results of the last 4 general elections. Which of them did the red shirts 'not win'?

If I had a vote, heck I might even vote for the Democrat Party. But they have to win a general election first to be a legitimate government.

As I said, if people are so sure that the PTP will be beaten at the polls, then hold the election. Abhisit and the Democrats win the popular vote, questions of legitimacy are put to rest, democracy is served. What are they waiting for?

Edited March 11, 2010 by Tedhead

[JetsetBkk]

"Do You Hope The Redshirts Succeed?"

as much as i hope to acquire Syphilis or HIV next week

So, is that a 'yes' or a 'no'?

[SeanMoran]

I want to see the UDD find the strength to see democracy returned to Thailand for all people, and not just the children of the wealthy, and all that Thaksin can really do in a positive way is to balance out the unfair distribution of wealth, the silver spoons that the rich kids' parents have put in their mouths to provide them with an unfair advantage over their fellow men and women.

[Moonrakers]

The problem for the old elite is that there could be a hundred elections and TRT/PPP/Puea Thai would win all of them.

Oh.

So why did they not win the last election then?

In 2001, the TRT party got 40.6% of the popular vote; the next largest party, the Democrat Party got 26.6%.

In 2005, the TRT party got 56.4% of the vote; the next largest, the Democrat Party got 16.1%.

In 2006, the Democrats boycotted the election. TRT got 60.7% of the votes.

In 2007, the TRT party having been dissolved, the PPP got 36.63% of the popular vote; the Democrat Party got 30.30%.

It was only by the constitutional court dissolving the PPP, thereby forcing by-elections and creating a splintering of PPP MPs that the Democrat Party was able to form a coalition.

Those are the results of the last 4 general elections. Which of them did the red shirts 'not win'?

If I had a vote, heck I might even vote for the Democrat Party. But they have to win a general election first to be a legitimate government.

As I said, if people are so sure that the PTP will be beaten at the polls, then hold the election. Abhisit and the Democrats win the popular vote, questions of legitimacy are put to rest, democracy is served. What are they waiting for?

The PPP DID NOT meet the criteria needed for them to win the 2007 election.

They DID NOT win enough seats for them to take government, nobody won, it was a hung parliament.

AGAIN. NOBODY won the 2007 election and for the sake of it I shall repeat: THE PPP DID NOT WIN THE 2007 election.

Edited March 11, 2010 by Moonrakers

[Xangsamhua]

I don't want to see the red shirts succeed in toppling the government because I don't like their leaders; I don't like the violent propensities of their more extreme elements; I don't like their lionizing of Thaksin; I don't like their total lack of interest in honest and accountable government, and I'm relatively happy with the Abhisit government. Pheua Thai, also, like their PPP forebears, simply don't have the competence to form a credible government.

However, to the extent that the red shirts are interested in dialogue about a more egalitarian society and a more authentic Thai culture, I don't want them to fail either. Trouble is, it seems that only some of them are genuinely interested in change, but those that are should be given some voice and a genuine hearing. Slapping a LM writ on them every time they open their mouth doesn't help anyone.

I would also like to see the people of the Isaan provinces, in particular, given a good deal. They have been looked down upon by the Bangkok Thais, treated with contempt and seen simply as raw material for the service industry for a long time, and that has to be ended. Bangkok is reaping now what it has sown and cultivated for two hundred years in its oppression and exploitation of the Lao-speaking people of the Northeast. To the extent that Thaksin, sincerely or otherwise, actually spoke to the people of Isaan and appeared to treat them as equals, one can understand why they like him. Even people like Sarit and Chavalit, who actually came from the Northeast, never to my knowledge did anything to raise standards or a sense of pride among the Isaan people. If the Reds are in fact a voice for Isaan, then they need to be listened to. Victory over the Reds now may be necessary in the short term, but they will remain a force as long as inequity, injustice and self-serving maintenance of the old power structures remain in force.

[manjara]

I kind of hope that it will be like the battle scene in Braveheart where the 2 sides rush at each other, meet in the middle and the Irish mercenaries and Scots don't fight at all, but turn on their paymasters. As in Braveheart, the ruling elite on both sides are full of corruption and just exploit their followers.

[Tedhead]

The problem for the old elite is that there could be a hundred elections and TRT/PPP/Puea Thai would win all of them.

Oh.

So why did they not win the last election then?

In 2001, the TRT party got 40.6% of the popular vote; the next largest party, the Democrat Party got 26.6%.

In 2005, the TRT party got 56.4% of the vote; the next largest, the Democrat Party got 16.1%.

In 2006, the Democrats boycotted the election. TRT got 60.7% of the votes.

In 2007, the TRT party having been dissolved, the PPP got 36.63% of the popular vote; the Democrat Party got 30.30%.

It was only by the constitutional court dissolving the PPP, thereby forcing by-elections and creating a splintering of PPP MPs that the Democrat Party was able to form a coalition.

Those are the results of the last 4 general elections. Which of them did the red shirts 'not win'?

If I had a vote, heck I might even vote for the Democrat Party. But they have to win a general election first to be a legitimate government.

As I said, if people are so sure that the PTP will be beaten at the polls, then hold the election. Abhisit and the Democrats win the popular vote, questions of legitimacy are put to rest, democracy is served. What are they waiting for?

The PPP DID NOT meet the criteria needed for them to win the 2007 election.

They DID NOT win enough seats for them to take government, nobody won, it was a hung parliament.

AGAIN. NOBODY won the 2007 election and for the sake of it I shall repeat: THE PPP DID NOT WIN THE 2007 election.

The PPP won the largest share of the vote. By any sane metric, they won the election. In the UK, Labour have been elected three times to government, twice in a 'landslide', at all times with way under 50% of the vote. If the Tories, as looks likely, are the largest party in the forthcoming UK election, but are a minority government, they will still be deemed to have won the election.

You can make the font size as big as you like, it's still not going to diminish the fact that for the last 9 years, the Democrat Party has lost every general election.

The traditional elite has dissolved the reds' political party structures twice in a bid to fragment the opposition. If the TRT had remained intact and individual members punished instead - as would happen in a normal democracy - what do you think might have been the relative votes in 2007, TRT vs. the Democrat Party? Note that as well, after the boycotted 2006 election, the Attorney General's office found that the Democrats had bribed smaller parties to join the boycott, and recommended that the Democrat Party be dissolved. Instead, the TRT party was dissolved and the Democrat Party left unscathed.

Even after the 2007 election, the PPP were the government. The PPP formed a coalition with smaller parties and formed a government. It took another constitutional court and another dissolution to bring down the coalition.

Like I say, I don't even like Thaksin. But to frame things as though there was a mild-mannered process of above board elections followed by normal inter-party engagement and negotiations is risible. The traditional elite, aided and abetted by the constitutional court, has done everyone in its considerable power to fragment the opposition to it.

If you care about genuine democracy, and by the size of your fonts on the subject it appears you do, then what is wrong with an election to make clear the will of the people? The largest party - majority or minority, whether you or I define them as having 'won' or not - then gets to form a government or the chance to form a coalition government should they not have an outright majority.

What's so terrifying about a democratic election? That the Democrat Party might lose for the fifth time in a row?

[britmaveric]

^nicely stated and quite accurate Tedhead! :D

[Moonrakers]

^^

For what it's worth Tedhead, I actually mostly agree with you. Not on all points but at least in general.

The point that I am trying to make is that so many people join these threads trying to state facts that just are just not true, such as the vast majority of Thai's support Thaksin/PPP/Reds/Whatever. It get's quite frustrating because such threads end up going around in circles going over the same all points ad finitum without a proper discussion being able to take place.

That nobody won the 2007 election is indeed a fact, a fact that is misconstrued and even lied about to the point where it is made to look as though the vast majority of Thai's are 'red', which is simply not true. If people could understand that it was a hung parliament, but...................... then perhaps a decent discussion could be had.

Edited March 11, 2010 by Moonrakers

[britmaveric]

^reds are vastly popular. However at the end of the day most people do not get involved whether they support red or yellow. They have better things to do like work and take care of family.

[Ricardo]

In 2007, the TRT party having been dissolved, the PPP got 36.63% of the popular vote; the Democrat Party got 30.30%.

Sorry, but I don't agree those figures.

If by "popular vote" you mean 'proportional vote', the PPP & Democrats got 41.5% each, 14,071,799 for PPP and 14,084,265 for the Dems. Since then of course, part of the PPP broke away, the 'friends of Newin' group, which would reduce the PTP's share further, in any future election.

If by "popular vote" you mean 'constituency vote', the PPP won 37.6% of the vote and 49.5% of the seats, the Dems got 31.1% of the vote and 33.0% of the seats.

Oh, and the 2006-election was annulled, so nobody won it.

[SeanMoran]

^^

For what it's worth Tedhead, I actually mostly agree with you. Not on all points but at least in general.

The point that I am trying to make is that so many people join these threads trying to state facts that just are just not true, such as the vast majority of Thai's support Thaksin/PPP/Reds/Whatever. It get's quite frustrating because such threads end up going around in circles going over the same all points ad finitum without a proper discussion being able to take place.

That nobody won the 2007 election is indeed a fact, a fact that is misconstrued and even lied about to the point where it is made to look as though the vast majority of Thai's are 'red', which is simply not true. If people could understand that it was a hung parliament, but...................... then perhaps a decent discussion could be had.

The vast majority of Thais ride motorbikes, don't live in a plush mansion in Bangkok, don't have a uni degree, don't take their vacations via Suvarnabhumi to German hotel exhibitions, and in the context of the integral whole, don't really give a dahmn about all this hooliganistic politics, but they're human, and they tolerate a lot of this sort of crap and still keep smiling, because that is what Thailand is famous for.

If democratic elections were the only way to win government here, then there's no doubt that the UDD would retain government to this day, even if sometimes less than 50%. A majority is a majority. Now it seems history recalls that the most convenient way to win government of the Kingdom is to blockade the airports, so let's hope the UDD learn something from the PAD and get on with regaining their rightful government by the same means that their 'well-educated' opposition have taught them.

[Moonrakers]

the UDD would retain government to this day

Putting asides the fact that they are not a political party Sean....

If they are fighting for democracy then why don't they show that they are fighting for democracy rather than fighting for one individual and his money.

If they dropped Thaksin "Democracy is not my goal" Shinawatra as their talisman and focused on the real issues such as corruption and politics being interfered with by entities that have no place in politics, then they could well gain a lot of sympathy and support.

Edited March 11, 2010 by Moonrakers

[SeanMoran]

the UDD would retain government to this day

Putting asides the fact that they are not a political party Sean....

I see by the further notions on your post that you might prefer to call them the TRT party, but there have been a few changes over the past few years. I'm sorry that you were unable to understand the meaning of my abbreviation, even though it's quite clear by what you wrote below that you do.

If they are fighting for democracy then why don't they show that they are fighting for democracy rather than fighting for one individual and his money.

If they dropped Thaksin "Democracy is not my goal" Shinawatra as their talisman and focused on the real issues such as corruption and politics being interfered with by entities that have no place in politics, then they could well gain a lot of sympathy and support.

I am sorry that you are unable to see beyond your own dislike of the same ex-PM who I won't say I dislike completely, although he now comes across to me as rather a fair-weather sailor, and this is just the CNN version of reality. Entertainment for the bored masses with nothing better to worry about.

The UDD are not in need of sympathy from those who are too blind to understand reality beyond the CNN version of entertainment. Perhaps it's best we wait out this weekend and talk further on Monday, when we will both be able to discuss the same events, sans CNN rhetoric.

[Moonrakers]

Before we go any further Sean....

The UDD are the National United Front of Democracy Against Dictatorship, one of the main factions of the red-shirts.

The TRT (Or Thai Rak Thai) are a now a defunct political party whom are now known as PTP.

They are two separate entities, one (the UDD) which is and never has been a political party and the other (TRT) is no longer in existence.

THEY ARE NOT THE SAME SEAN!

Edited March 11, 2010 by Moonrakers

[neverdie]

^Sean, you not being obnoxious are you, I noticed its 5 hours after beer o clock started, is it time for bed yet?

[ozzieovaseas]

I think he's just getting warmed up

[neverdie]

^I was worried you might say that, I thought sean would be having an early night and all that, get ready for tommorrows entertainment

[mrtoad]

^I was worried you might say that, I thought sean would be having an early night and all that, get ready for tommorrows entertainment

He's probably getting a few in, just in case there is a restriction alcohol being served.

[Phil Conners]

I though it was commonly known that the only reason TRT and later PPP won was by massive vote buying in the North-East.

AFAIK the Democrats are the first party to govern who didn't pay their way in.

[Moonrakers]

I though it was commonly known that the only reason TRT and later PPP won was by massive vote buying in the North-East.

AFAIK the Democrats are the first party to govern who didn't pay their way in.

Phil.

You may well be right, but this will only result in this thread going around in circles for another 3 pages or so along the lines of "Well the Dem's cheated too",..... "But PPP cheated more"..... and so on.

[britmaveric]

Well its relevant to the reds gripes....if present govt was serious about squashing their concerns they would have called for a new election. However I think an election is what they fear the most.

[cognos]

my large family in Thailand (by marriage) are all yellow shirt supporters, except one brother in law who is a red shirt supporter..incidently, he is the most educated of all of them, with a master's degree

how ironic??

[Roadman]

I though it was commonly known that the only reason TRT and later PPP won was by massive vote buying in the North-East.

AFAIK the Democrats are the first party to govern who didn't pay their way in.

Strange I thought it was commonly known that the Democrats didn't have to pay their way in. With patronage from the Army, the elite and a favourable judicary, money ain't gonna get any honey for the PPP.