Pheu Thai Set To Beat Democrats By Narrow Margin: Survey

[jayboy]

You talked about "policy content difference". Is returning Thaksin not policy content?

If "ideologically in Thailand it's hard to see much policy content difference between the parties", does that mean the that the red shirts are part of the "crazed hysteria and ersatz nationalism of the feudalists, military and assorted hangers on."

You can't have it both ways.

I honestly don't understand what you are talking about.

The Democrats may be the favoured party of the elite, but it is much more than that with some first class key people.It's certainly not organically part of the corrupt feudal military establishment.

Stop beating around the bush, Jayboy. Just writing 'ideologically hard to see policy content difference' is already the start of obfuscation, unless you mean all parties have the best in mind for ALL Thai people.

Still there are content and execution differences. PTP has one brain, the Dem's many. The Dem's are slower in implementation, the PTP over hasty. The Dem's have part of the traditional elite behind them, the PTP the other part. Both parties have corruption problems, although PTP in it's older guise of TRT/PPP seems to excel. The two PM's with PPP had main agenda point 'bring back Thaksin', the current PM 'bring forward the country'. The PTP has again main agenda point 'bring back Thaksin', the Dem's again 'bring forward the country'. Well, what do you know, by know I even listed some of those 'ideological differences' which some found hard to see

Amazing.You have not listed one genuine policy difference (but see Thaksin comment below) let alone ideological difference.You have fleetingly mentioned execution differences and though not even the point under discussion,is itself questionable.

"Bring forward the country" is not a policy:it's a tired election slogan which any party might use.I suppose it could be argued that "bring back Thaksin is a policy".But in my view it isn't really.Let's say hypothetically he was back and in power or in a position of influence, the question is what policies would be introduced? I suggest in terms of economic, financial and social policies they wouldn't be that different from those of the current government.

Incidentally referring back to earlier posts in this thread, in most democracies where no overall majority after an election the party with the largest number of seats has first turn in trying to form a government.Anyone know what the convention is in Thailand, by which I mean the legal or constitutional position.?

Edited May 10, 2011 by jayboy

[maewrocks]

Your claims and complaints are, to put it succinctly, without merit.

First, the goal of a democratic electorial system should be consistent, periodic, orderly transfer of power.

The Thai approach to this is defined in the Thai constitution -- which was adopted by national popular vote four years ago. It doesn't matter if you call the Thai system "westminster" or "wallaby", the coalition government was formed openly according to the procedures and processes which the Thai nation adopted in their constitution. They have "followed the rules" as defined in the Thai constitution in forming the government. So, it is inaccurate to claim they have done something wrong, unfair, or invalid.

Second, it is a coalition government. It isn't one political party (i.e. Democratic Party). The coalition is made of a group of parties which hold more than a majority of the power in the parliament. Therefore, it is wrong to discount the "mandate" of the entire coalition based on one member (i.e. Democratic Party) of the coalition.

Third, if the current mandate is for Pheu Thai, as you claim, why have they not been able to convince the other political parties to abandon this coalition and (re)join with them to form a new coalition now?

Better yet, why was Pheu Thai unable to form a coalition with the other political parties, if their mandate has been so strong and consistent all along? Oh yes, it was because this time around those political parties said NO to Pheu Thai and decided to join with the Democratic Party for once. Traditionally, those parties had always sided with Pheu Thai (or its old names Thai-Rak-Thai or People's Power Party), but this time they didn't.

Fourth, you claim the Democratic Party lost badly in the "most recent general election". Actually the most recent general election was in 2007. The Democrats got 39.63% of the vote, and Pheu Thai only 39.60% (source: Wikipedia Last Thai General Election 2007 ). Perhaps this is why Pheu Thai could not form a coalition after the last general election?

Fifth, Pheu Thai (or TRT or PPP) has never had a simple majority of a popular vote win. They have always formed coalition governments themselves. You didn't trumpet their illegitimacy back then, so why claim now that this makes the current government unfair and invalid?

Sixth, if there was anything going down here that was not in accord with the laws, procedures, and constitution of Thailand, you really believe that Pheu Thai would not instantly be at the Constitution Court? If they had any flimsy leg to stand on, they would be at the high court with a team of five hundred lawyers faster than you can say "som-tom-gai-yang".

Perhaps you have a legitimate complaint about the Thai political processes, procedures, and rules. However, do not confuse that systematic issue with a complaint about the current government.

[qoute]

Third, if the current mandate is for Pheu Thai, as you claim, why have they not been able to convince the other political parties to abandon this coalition and (re)join with them to form a new coalition now?

Better yet, why was Pheu Thai unable to form a coalition with the other political parties, if their mandate has been so strong and consistent all along? Oh yes, it was because this time around those political parties said NO to Pheu Thai and decided to join with the Democratic Party for once

Ans: After the 2007 election PPP were 7 short of an absolute majority and had absolutely no problems getting other parties to join them and form a coalition. It was only until the army refused to follow the PM's orders that it was made obvious to all involved that the only party allowed to run any government was the Dems.

Fifth, Pheu Thai (or TRT or PPP) has never had a simple majority of a popular vote win. They have always formed coalition governments themselves. You didn't trumpet their illegitimacy back then, so why claim now that this makes the current government unfair and invalid?

Ans: General elections were held in Thailand on 6 February 2005. With a turnout of 60.7 percent, the Thai Rak Thai Party (Thais Love Thais Party) of Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra won a landslide victory. Out of 500 seats in the House of Representatives, Thaksin's party won 374 seats

Sixth, if there was anything going down here that was not in accord with the laws, procedures, and constitution of Thailand, you really believe that Pheu Thai would not instantly be at the Constitution Court? If they had any flimsy leg to stand on, they would be at the high court with a team of five hundred lawyers faster than you can say "som-tom-gai-yang".

Ans: The constitutional court have shown their true colours during this administration, wouldn't you say!

It is political courtesy around the world to give the party who wins the most seats the opportunity to form the coalition government first; anyone arguing against this is simply

ignorantly clutching at straws in an attempt to defend who they believe should be the 'rightful' leaders

[SomTumTiger]

-snip-

Please learn to use quotes lol

[whybother]

Third, if the current mandate is for Pheu Thai, as you claim, why have they not been able to convince the other political parties to abandon this coalition and (re)join with them to form a new coalition now?

Better yet, why was Pheu Thai unable to form a coalition with the other political parties, if their mandate has been so strong and consistent all along? Oh yes, it was because this time around those political parties said NO to Pheu Thai and decided to join with the Democratic Party for once

Ans: After the 2007 election PPP were 7 short of an absolute majority and had absolutely no problems getting other parties to join them and form a coalition. It was only until the army refused to follow the PM's orders that it was made obvious to all involved that the only party allowed to run any government was the Dems.

More likely was that it was obvious to the smaller parties that the PTP was incompetent, and that their one aim of getting Thaksin back was worth supporting.

Fifth, Pheu Thai (or TRT or PPP) has never had a simple majority of a popular vote win. They have always formed coalition governments themselves. You didn't trumpet their illegitimacy back then, so why claim now that this makes the current government unfair and invalid?

Ans: General elections were held in Thailand on 6 February 2005. With a turnout of 60.7 percent, the Thai Rak Thai Party (Thais Love Thais Party) of Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra won a landslide victory. Out of 500 seats in the House of Representatives, Thaksin's party won 374 seats

That was after Thaksin bought a heap of smaller parties. Look where those factions have gone now.

Sixth, if there was anything going down here that was not in accord with the laws, procedures, and constitution of Thailand, you really believe that Pheu Thai would not instantly be at the Constitution Court? If they had any flimsy leg to stand on, they would be at the high court with a team of five hundred lawyers faster than you can say "som-tom-gai-yang".

Ans: The constitutional court have shown their true colours during this administration, wouldn't you say!

Are you talking about the difference between getting caught on video committing electoral fraud, and getting a complaint from a company after being asked to provide VAT receipts?

It is political courtesy around the world to give the party who wins the most seats the opportunity to form the coalition government first; anyone arguing against this is simply

ignorantly clutching at straws in an attempt to defend who they believe should be the 'rightful' leaders

"political courtesy"

The party who wins the most seats DOES have the opportunity to form government first. That doesn't mean that they will be successful. If the majority of MPs don't want to support them, then they won't get into government.

[TheGhostWithin]

This is Thailand (TIT)!

Internationally, the margin of error for Polls can cause a slight variation in the final results - in Thailand, another factor to contend with is Vote buying (in its various forms, which are becoming more creative). Lets just say, the vote "investing" has not yet begun!

I was a supporter of the democrats, and have not really been around long enough to have been affected by PTP policies (I am 26), but can say that the restrictive anti western policies of the Democrats have made life much harder than they have to be for my partner and I (I cant do the job I do in my country already, even at a trainee or intern level, because I dont have a degree of any discipline, as one example). The policies which are being developed in the house are becoming more anti-western over time too, which sad to say are one of the main reasons that the Thai stock market is one of the most under-invested markets in Asia (yes, its been rising, but not at the same level as China, India, or Cambodia).

This brings to mind the recent election here in NZ - the opposition was not considered great, but people voted for them just to remove the party in power, because they had lost touch with the people. I believe the same is true in Thailand. Even many Bangkokians will feel the same, once inflation begins to kick in and rents, food and electricity prices rise (The Dems cant keep subsidising gas prices forever).

Let the Vote buying begin! Oh.. I mean.. the Election!

Edited May 10, 2011 by TheGhostWithin

[whybother]

...

I was a supporter of the democrats, and have not really been around long enough to have been affected by PTP policies (I am 26), but can say that the restrictive anti western policies of the Democrats have made life much harder than they have to be for my partner and I (I cant do the job I do in my country already, even at a trainee or intern level, because I dont have a degree of any discipline, as one example). The policies which are being developed in the house are becoming more anti-western over time too, which sad to say are one of the main reasons that the Thai stock market is one of the most under-invested markets in Asia (yes, its been rising, but not at the same level as China, India, or Cambodia).

...

What are these restrictive anti-western policies that the Democrats have brought in?

[Buchholz]

NEWSFLASH - NEWSFLASH - NEWSFLASH.

For all those who wonder why the PTP will only win by a small margin, read this from my main source of inspiration, Robert A.'s website on Thailand:

"Down By Law: The Legal Impairment of Thailand’s Opposition

We are pleased to announce the latest release of The Thailand 2011 General Elections Report Series, No. 2 — Down By Law: The Legal Impairment of Thailand’s Opposition, focused on the issue of party dissolutions. Much of the content of this report has been submitted to the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU), which then passed a resolution urging the Government of Thailand to reform these constitutional provisions that damage democracy."

http://robertamsterdam.com/thailand/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/ERS-DOWNBYLAW.pdf

That's funny, because there's nothing on the Inter-Parliamentary Union's press releases about passing any resolutions over it or in the news in general about it.

Is Amsterdam sure he submitted his paper to that IPU and not the Irish Pharmacy Union???

http://www.ipu.ie/

[whybother]

NEWSFLASH - NEWSFLASH - NEWSFLASH.

For all those who wonder why the PTP will only win by a small margin, read this from my main source of inspiration, Robert A.'s website on Thailand:

"Down By Law: The Legal Impairment of Thailand's Opposition

We are pleased to announce the latest release of The Thailand 2011 General Elections Report Series, No. 2 — Down By Law: The Legal Impairment of Thailand's Opposition, focused on the issue of party dissolutions. Much of the content of this report has been submitted to the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU), which then passed a resolution urging the Government of Thailand to reform these constitutional provisions that damage democracy."

http://robertamsterd...S-DOWNBYLAW.pdf

That's funny, because there's nothing on the Inter-Parliamentary Union's press releases about passing any resolutions over it or in the news in general about it.

Is Amsterdam sure he submitted his paper to that IPU and not the Irish Pharmacy Union???

http://www.ipu.ie/

http://www.ipu.org/press-e/panama7.htm ... comments related to the banning of the TRT and PPP ... and some other parties.

[TheGhostWithin]

...

What are these restrictive anti-western policies that the Democrats have brought in?

As I said, I have not been around long enough to know what rule under PTP means for Thailand, but I know what it has meant under the Democrats - I have seen very little changes made, which make Thailand a more free environment to do business (having to have a local business partner own 51% of your business, and get approval for businesses over a certain size is not free), and situations where obtaining a work permit is not always easy either, as you cannot take a job which a Thai person could normally do either. Thai people take advantage in various western countries of loose working regulations, whereby it is the work visa which regulates your ability to work, and that you can work in ANY industry.. whereas in Thailand it is the industry which regulates if you recieve a work visa or not.

Perhaps if the western countries, which a certain member of the current parliament has openly stated he dislikes and dustrusts, should begin to impose identical laws and policies in their home countries, and see how the current government view it - protectionist perhaps? Imagine if, to do business in USA, Australia etc, every Thai restaurant had to have a local national owner, with at least a 51% stake in the business - and for a Thai to obtain local citizenship, it was almost an impossibility. Protectionist? Absolutely.

Protectionism stints development. Growth, is not development. Having too many hotels is not development. Restricting rice production to increase value is not development. Relying on a few industries to run an entire, heavily populated nation is not development. Fighting for control of the government when you lose an election by protesting, then cracking down on supporters of the ousted regime when they do almost exactly what you did to get into power is not development. This is why the SET has not been increasing at the same rate as other asian markets, and why Western nations have let Cambodia do what it is doing in Si Saket and Surin without offering assistance - lack of action is also a form of acceptance in politics.

Edited May 10, 2011 by TheGhostWithin

[Buchholz]

NEWSFLASH - NEWSFLASH - NEWSFLASH.

For all those who wonder why the PTP will only win by a small margin, read this from my main source of inspiration, Robert A.'s website on Thailand:

"Down By Law: The Legal Impairment of Thailand's Opposition

We are pleased to announce the latest release of The Thailand 2011 General Elections Report Series, No. 2 — Down By Law: The Legal Impairment of Thailand's Opposition, focused on the issue of party dissolutions. Much of the content of this report has been submitted to the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU), which then passed a resolution urging the Government of Thailand to reform these constitutional provisions that damage democracy."

http://robertamsterd...S-DOWNBYLAW.pdf

That's funny, because there's nothing on the Inter-Parliamentary Union's press releases about passing any resolutions over it or in the news in general about it.

Is Amsterdam sure he submitted his paper to that IPU and not the Irish Pharmacy Union???

http://www.ipu.ie/

http://www.ipu.org/press-e/panama7.htm ... comments related to the banning of the TRT and PPP ... and some other parties.

Ahh... thank you. Guess I didn't go far enough back into their previous press releases.

I was looking for something relative to Amsterdam's assertion that the IPU was reacting to his latest paper that he had submitted to them and that they had made a new resolution because of that.

They hadn't and they didn't.

.

Edited May 10, 2011 by Buchholz

[whybother]

...

What are these restrictive anti-western policies that the Democrats have brought in?

As I said, I have not been around long enough to know what rule under PTP means for Thailand, but I know what it has meant under the Democrats - I have seen very little changes made, which make Thailand a more free environment to do business (having to have a local business partner own 51% of your business, and get approval for businesses over a certain size is not free), and situations where obtaining a work permit is not always easy either, as you cannot take a job which a Thai person could normally do either. Thai people take advantage in various western countries of loose working regulations, whereby it is the work visa which regulates your ability to work, and that you can work in ANY industry.. whereas in Thailand it is the industry which regulates if you recieve a work visa or not.

Perhaps if the western countries, which a certain member of the current parliament has openly stated he dislikes and dustrusts, should begin to impose identical laws and policies in their home countries, and see how the current government view it - protectionist perhaps? Imagine if, to do business in USA, Australia etc, every Thai restaurant had to have a local national owner, with at least a 51% stake in the business - and for a Thai to obtain local citizenship, it was almost an impossibility. Protectionist? Absolutely.

Protectionism stints development. Growth, is not development. Having too many hotels is not development. Restricting rice production to increase value is not development. Relying on a few industries to run an entire, heavily populated nation is not development. Fighting for control of the government when you lose an election by protesting, then cracking down on supporters of the ousted regime when they do almost exactly what you did to get into power is not development. This is why the SET has not been increasing at the same rate as other asian markets, and why Western nations have let Cambodia do what it is doing in Si Saket and Surin without offering assistance - lack of action is also a form of acceptance in politics.

Oh. So when you say "restrictive anti western policies of the Democrats", you don't actually mean "restrictive anti western policies of the Democrats", you really mean "restrictive anti western policies of" Thailand - the ones that have been policies for many years.

And some of these "restrictive anti western policies" are similar to policies of western governments, and are also policies of other developing nations. I know Australia restricts who is allowed to live and work there, and it's quite difficult to get visas to live there even if you're married. There are restrictions on foreign ownership too, but it is relative to the ability of Australians to buy things.

I'm not really up with reading financial data, but the brief look I had showed Thailand was doing much better than Malaysia. Maybe I'm reading it wrong.

[phiphidon]

http://www.ipu.org/press-e/panama7.htm ... comments related to the banning of the TRT and PPP ... and some other parties.

Ahh... thank you. Guess I didn't go far enough back into their previous press releases.

I was looking for something relative to Amsterdam's assertion that the IPU was reacting to his latest paper that he had submitted to them and that they had made a new resolution because of that.

They hadn't and they didn't.

.

They had and they did.

The link given above was from a press release - the part concerning the Thailand political situation is pasted below

Senator Green also presented, for the first time, the case of 180 former legislators in Thailand. They were members of one of four Thai political parties. Through two separate decisions, the Constitutional Tribunal dissolved those parties and disbarred all parliamentarians from exercising their political rights for five years. It did so after finding a total of five individuals in these parties guilty of corruption and electoral fraud.

"The Committee is deeply concerned at the collective disbarment, which was based on legal provisions adopted after the military coup in September 2006, and which have the effect of retroactively punishing entire groups for the behaviour of a few individuals. The Committee is likewise concerned that their disbarment deprives the significant part of the Thai population that they represent of its voice in Parliament and of a free choice to elect its representatives in elections scheduled for mid-2011. The Committee calls on the competent Thai authorities, including the Parliament, to do everything possible to modify the sweeping legal provisions that were applied in this case, and to look at ways to have the disbarment of the parliamentarians reconsidered", concluded Senator Green.

The Full text of the adopted resolution by the IPU is here;

http://www.ipu.org/hr-e/188/th03.htm

If you had read the Amsterdam and Peroff report fully you would have noticed the assertion you mention (the appendix of the report) is the actual wording, ln full, of the

"Resolution adopted unanimously by the IPU Governing Council at its 188th session

(Panama, 20 April 2011)"

So they had and they did...............

[Buchholz]

http://www.ipu.org/press-e/panama7.htm ... comments related to the banning of the TRT and PPP ... and some other parties.

Ahh... thank you. Guess I didn't go far enough back into their previous press releases.

I was looking for something relative to Amsterdam's assertion that the IPU was reacting to his latest paper that he had submitted to them and that they had made a new resolution because of that.

They hadn't and they didn't.

They had and they did.

Actually, they hadn't and didn't.

The IPU report from April had nothing to do with the Amsterdam "report" done in May.

He cited their report in his "report" and that is the extent of the connection up to this point.

His "report" did mention he has asked IPU to further investigate when they meet again in October. It'll be interesting if they pay him any heed or if they just ignore him like most other organizational entities have done.

.

Edited May 10, 2011 by Buchholz

[phiphidon]

1. 
   They had and they did.
   

   Actually, they hadn't and didn't.
   The IPU report from April had nothing to do with the Amsterdam "report" done in May.
   He cited their report in his "report" and that is the extent of the connection up to this point.
   His "report" did mention he has asked IPU to further investigate when they meet again in October. It'll be interesting if they pay him any heed or if they just ignore him like most other organizational entities have done.
   .
   

   According to Amsterdam etc. they submitted "much of the report" to the IPU (pre publication on the 9th may) and the IPU acted upon it. Ok, you can (and no doubt will) say that Amsterdam did not have anything to do with the resolution being adopted by the IPU - however, the IPU did have 180 cases of former Thai MP's before them, which had been studied by the IPU. Now you could say that those 180 individuals got together or individually put their cases before the IPU or more probably the IPU were provided this information by Amsterdam Peroff et al. Yours to agree or disagree.
   As for the last sentence it is actually the

   The Governing Council of the Inter-Parliamentary Union ................(that asks)...............................the Committee to continue examining this case and report to it at its next session, to be held on the occasion of the 125th IPU Assembly (October 2011).

Not Amsterdam.

[Buchholz]

1. [*]

They had and they did.

Actually, they hadn't and didn't.

The IPU report from April had nothing to do with the Amsterdam "report" done in May.

He cited their report in his "report" and that is the extent of the connection up to this point.

His "report" did mention he has asked IPU to further investigate when they meet again in October. It'll be interesting if they pay him any heed or if they just ignore him like most other organizational entities have done.

According to Amsterdam etc. they submitted "much of the report" to the IPU (pre publication on the 9th may) and the IPU acted upon it. Ok, you can (and no doubt will) say that Amsterdam did not have anything to do with the resolution being adopted by the IPU - however, the IPU did have 180 cases of former Thai MP's before them, which had been studied by the IPU. Now you could say that those 180 individuals got together or individually put their cases before the IPU or more probably the IPU were provided this information by Amsterdam Peroff et al. Yours to agree or disagree.

So you are saying that the "source" listed in IPU's report was Amsterdam?

http://www.ipu.org/hr-e/188/th03.htm

Lord help them if it was.

Going by the numerous critical omissions in detailing the Party Executives banning, he may well have been, but I wouldn't guess who this "source" is.

It's troubling that the organization seemingly just took the word of the source as the basis for its resolution without their own due diligence in the matter.

If it was him, then hopefully they'll get a far less tainted source for their report in October.

.

Edited May 10, 2011 by Buchholz

[Bobverily]

No what I am actually suggesting is that it is wrong for the military to take over a democratically elected government and then conspire to have the majority of the politicians they don't like jailed and then banned from political activities.

I am also suggest that the majority of the people should get their voice herd first and foremost not like in Australia where the majority of the people who voted in the election not only have control of the government they don't even get a voice.

With regards to Rob Oakshott and Tony Windsor these men took large bribes which will be funneled through some of their business acquaintances in their electorate. They both know two things, one they will never have to work again and two they will never have to face the people who they fuc_ked over, basically the ones who voted for them.

Remember these are men traditionally from a far right conservative party and once they were elected they sided with the far left.

They are the absolute scum of the earth and it is wrong for you to defend them.

These men are politicians who spend their whole lives lying to the very people who support them.

We are not talking about a deal over policy, these men put a radical far left government into power in a country where the vast majority of the people didn't want them.

[whybother]

No what I am actually suggesting is that it is wrong for the military to take over a democratically elected government and then conspire to have the majority of the politicians they don't like jailed and then banned from political activities.

I am also suggest that the majority of the people should get their voice herd first and foremost not like in Australia where the majority of the people who voted in the election not only have control of the government they don't even get a voice.

1) There was no democratically elected government when the coup occurred. The democratically elected government of 2005 was dissolved by Thaksin for an election in 2006. He called that election to get the OK from the electorate that the sale of his company to Temasek was OK after he had changed laws to sell it to them without paying any tax on the sale.

2) No politicians were jailed. They were banned because of their efforts in paying parties to run against them in some electorates to avoid them having to get more than 20% of the vote.

3) The electoral systems are the similar in Thailand and Australia * and everyone gets to have their say. It doesn't always go to everyones liking, but people vote for MPs, and MPs elect the PM who forms government, just like in Australia.

* except that in Australia the MP is elected through preferential voting, whereas in Thailand the MP is elected by simply getting first past the post. And in Thailand they have the party list system (proportional representation), which actually gives Thais more of a say than Australians, because even though their vote might not count in the electorate (because more people vote for another guy) their vote will count in the party list.

With regards to Rob Oakshott and Tony Windsor these men took large bribes which will be funneled through some of their business acquaintances in their electorate. They both know two things, one they will never have to work again and two they will never have to face the people who they fuc_ked over, basically the ones who voted for them.

Remember these are men traditionally from a far right conservative party and once they were elected they sided with the far left.

They are the absolute scum of the earth and it is wrong for you to defend them.

These men are politicians who spend their whole lives lying to the very people who support them.

We are not talking about a deal over policy, these men put a radical far left government into power in a country where the vast majority of the people didn't want them.

I wasn't in Aus for the election, so I don't know all the details and conspiracy theories, but as I said earlier, these guys were EX-Liberal / National MPs and were running as independents. They would be want to be elected at the next election, so they would do what was best for their electorate. They wouldn't necessarily do what the Liberal and National party voters wanted, because they were Independent.

[rreddin]

Democrats, Pheu Thai (%)

Management efficiency: 35.5 54.5

Economic performance: 35.4 64.6

Vision and policies: 41.0 59.0

Public acceptance: 39.1 60.9.........

It's time for these muppets to get out!! Unelected and unfit to govern. In the last election they were massacred 165: 233

Even though you Dem defenders claim the 'Westminster system' and 'fairly elected by fellow members of the house', the simple fact is; there is not another country in the world that is governed by a party who lost this badly in the most recent general election. And still they refuse to accept the condition that the party with the most votes gets the mandate...they know this will cause more political turbulence, but shamelessly and spinelessly they will cling to power by any means. You've had your turn (as unfair as it was) now listen to the people AND GET OUT!!!!!!!!

maewrocks

TV user name means Thaksin rocks

frequent poster in favour of Thaksin

frequent abuser of democrats

joined 1st may 2011

can anyone join the dots here............

Very interesting.... So you are monitoring forum members whose views you happen not to agree with. I wonder who is monitoring you?

[ianbaggie]

Democrats, Pheu Thai (%)

Management efficiency: 35.5 54.5

Economic performance: 35.4 64.6

Vision and policies: 41.0 59.0

Public acceptance: 39.1 60.9.........

It's time for these muppets to get out!! Unelected and unfit to govern. In the last election they were massacred 165: 233

Even though you Dem defenders claim the 'Westminster system' and 'fairly elected by fellow members of the house', the simple fact is; there is not another country in the world that is governed by a party who lost this badly in the most recent general election. And still they refuse to accept the condition that the party with the most votes gets the mandate...they know this will cause more political turbulence, but shamelessly and spinelessly they will cling to power by any means. You've had your turn (as unfair as it was) now listen to the people AND GET OUT!!!!!!!!

Yeah - and its time you got out to let our NICE CORRUPT CRIMINAL back in!! so GET OUT!!

[animatic]

Democrats, Pheu Thai (%)

Management efficiency: 35.5 54.5

Economic performance: 35.4 64.6

Vision and policies: 41.0 59.0

Public acceptance: 39.1 60.9.........

It's time for these muppets to get out!! Unelected and unfit to govern. In the last election they were massacred 165: 233

Even though you Dem defenders claim the 'Westminster system' and 'fairly elected by fellow members of the house', the simple fact is; there is not another country in the world that is governed by a party who lost this badly in the most recent general election. And still they refuse to accept the condition that the party with the most votes gets the mandate...they know this will cause more political turbulence, but shamelessly and spinelessly they will cling to power by any means. You've had your turn (as unfair as it was) now listen to the people AND GET OUT!!!!!!!!

maewrocks

TV user name means Thaksin rocks

frequent poster in favour of Thaksin

frequent abuser of democrats

joined 1st may 2011

can anyone join the dots here............

Very interesting.... So you are monitoring forum members whose views you happen not to agree with. I wonder who is monitoring you?

It seems you are, and your point is...

[ianbaggie]

In many ways I would actually like to see the Pheu Thai gain control for the next election. As long as there is someone to make sure the square faced demagogue stays truly away from the feeding trough, and the court keeps a tight reign on his machinations, I think a Pheu Thai led coalition government would be ideal. That way, people could finally see such disillusioned sentiments like Pheu Thai is more "democratic" are simply egregious misconceptions with no basis in reality.

In any case, the economy during the next government is almost guaranteed to be a disaster. Whichever side wins is going to be tarred and feathered. Much better that it be Thaksin supporters who have to bear the brunt of this onslaught.

We will see, but a Pheu Thai led government could be a blessing in disguise. Their certain failure to fix what ills Thailand could finally mark the end of Thaksin's reign of terror.

Sadly that won't work because they will so control the message getting back up country that all their malfeasances will go unnoticed, till trials are finished to convict them one at a time. Then the chants of biased judiciary will start up again.

Not biased, directed.

Not Directed, corrupted

[ianbaggie]

Another pieces of rubbish from the Nation, the army's mouthpiece. A survey is conducted in a hand full of provinces again scoffing at the overwhelming majority of Thai people who are not asked anything. If PT gets 60% or more of the votes everybody will be surprised. In the eyes of the Nation Thailand is made up out of a maximum of 15 provinces today even less. Ignore the Nation there are real newspapers.

Like "Red Today" and "The voice of Thaksin"?

[ianbaggie]

I believe that if 50% of the electorate are still fence sitters at this stage, it's probably to Peua Thai's advantage (knowing their vote getting tactics like I do).

Amazingly, a party in disarray with leadership squabbles, run remotely, with a number 1 objective to spring Thaksin, and constantly exposed as fraudulent still manages to edge ahead, only in Thailand.

What is amazing is - how can you have democracy when peoples votes are so openly bought? Thaksin offers alittle to the poor and gets everything to abuse once more - the only stabilising force is the army

[ianbaggie]

Amazingly, a party in disarray with leadership squabbles, run remotely, with a number 1 objective to spring Thaksin, and constantly exposed as fraudulent still manages to edge ahead, only in Thailand.

Not amazing at all when they know the alternative is a military led coalition with an ineffective prime minister.

Personally - id prefer YOUR option to the first one

[Khun Jean]

So they win, form a coalition, then coalition breaks, and we have Abhisit back.

Thats ok with me.

[ianbaggie]

maewrocks

TV user name means Thaksin rocks

frequent poster in favour of Thaksin

frequent abuser of democrats

joined 1st may 2011

can anyone join the dots here............

Oh and people can't have a different opinion than you? Just like the elite/ military in Thailand. I actually joined because I was disgusted with the one-sided nature of the forum.

Everyone supports the government .... can anyone join the dots here............

Yes - most westerners cringe at the idea of bringing in a criminal to run the country and extort more money for his bank account to be put into his maids and drivers bank accounts 45 illion at a time - hence your argument is futile!!

[ianbaggie]

And the LIb/Dems threw their principals out the window to do it....

but why quibble about moral right vs expedience.

Perfectly fair point.

On the other hand ideologically in Thailand it's hard to see much policy content difference between the parties.

Quite the contrary - one sides policy is to leave the elite ticking along nicely all be it not totally democratically - with very little money to do it with, the other sides is to allow a deposed dictator to govern the country from outside and make policies which allow him absolute power through bribery and threats. - a clear difference Id say

[ianbaggie]

And the LIb/Dems threw their principals out the window to do it....

but why quibble about moral right vs expedience.

Perfectly fair point.

On the other hand ideologically in Thailand it's hard to see much policy content difference between the parties.

Except for a particular policy of "We'll bring Thaksin back and whitewash his criminal charges".

That's not ideology, that's politics.

For ideology in Thailand one has to look ato the crazed hysteria and ersatz nationalism of the feudalists, military and assorted hangers on.

hah!! In that case Jayboy - could you KINDLY inform us of the IDEOLOGY of the PTP party and red shirt movement - could you state ANYTHING they believe in which doesnt scream "bring back Thaksin"!!?

[rreddin]

Democrats, Pheu Thai (%)

Management efficiency: 35.5 54.5

Economic performance: 35.4 64.6

Vision and policies: 41.0 59.0

Public acceptance: 39.1 60.9.........

It's time for these muppets to get out!! Unelected and unfit to govern. In the last election they were massacred 165: 233

Even though you Dem defenders claim the 'Westminster system' and 'fairly elected by fellow members of the house', the simple fact is; there is not another country in the world that is governed by a party who lost this badly in the most recent general election. And still they refuse to accept the condition that the party with the most votes gets the mandate...they know this will cause more political turbulence, but shamelessly and spinelessly they will cling to power by any means. You've had your turn (as unfair as it was) now listen to the people AND GET OUT!!!!!!!!

maewrocks

TV user name means Thaksin rocks

frequent poster in favour of Thaksin

frequent abuser of democrats

joined 1st may 2011

can anyone join the dots here............

Very interesting.... So you are monitoring forum members whose views you happen not to agree with. I wonder who is monitoring you?

It seems you are, and your point is...

Actually, I am not.

I have two points:

1. There is a small number of members of this forum who think that nobody should have a different point of view to them. Sometimes they express this in a less than polite way;

2. My trust in this forum as a place where members may express their views (within the forum rules) has been undermined.

This is an active forum. I would like it to stay that way - that means it has to remain a broad church. If it does not, you can "join the dots here" and see where this will end up.

[ianbaggie]

Which so neatly encapsulates PTP, and the Red Shirt legions.

Explain further please, otherwise it's just meaningless.

refer to his previous post - then its MEANINGFUL:!!