Invalidate July 3 Vote, Impeach Thai EC, Say Activists

[nurofiend]

another statistic i came across is this

'The Thai economy almost doubled between 1990 and 1995 (from 2.2 to 4.2 trillion baht.)* But from 2000 to 2005, the economy grew more slowly (from 4.9 to 6.9 trillion baht.) Effectively, Thai GDP grew by 91% during the earlier period, but only by 41% during a period largely coinciding with Thaksin's rule

From 1990 to 1994, the percent of Thais living in poverty fell from 34% to 18%.

From 2000 to 2004 the percent in poverty fell from 21% to 11%.

During both periods, the percentage of Thais classified as poor decreased by almost half, despite the slower economic growth of the second period.'

this shows that thaksin governments policies did have an impact i think

also, i just wanna clear up, i'm not pro-thaksin at all... i just believe in looking at things impartially and taking people up on their views if i see them as biased

No it shows that

Poverty increased after Chavalit and Thaksin on step behind him

crashed the Asian Tiger anc caused the start of the AFC.

Which caused an increase in general poverty from 18% to 21%

Which the Chuan government worked hard to fix, tough medicine that worked.

Then as asia as whole recovered and the world economy was booming,

Thaksin 1 reaped benefits if can't this time around in a bad economy.

but that because of a WORLD economy greatly improved and the recovery

of asia there was a parellel connected drop in Thai poverty levels.

so you're saying poverty increased for a period when thaksin was in power?

and you're saying that none of the policies introduced by thaksin lowered poverty?

[Crushdepth]

I don't think Thai governments can take much credit for 'managing the economy'. The private sector pushes the economy along without much constructive input from the government of the day. Fact is, 'the government' doesn't actually *control* much of what they are allegedly in charge of, and the country wobbles along quite nicely without them.

Edited July 17, 2011 by Crushdepth

[nurofiend]

I don't think Thai governments can take much credit for 'managing the economy'. The private sector pushes the economy along without much constructive input from the government of the day. Fact is, 'the government' doesn't actually *control* much of what they are allegedly in charge of, and the country wobbles along quite nicely without them.

well i know that no government can't control what's not possible to control eg a global economic downfall or boom but of course their policies and actions do have an impact on the economy and the amount of poverty, look at countries in africa!

you're getting into a whole other issue of "how much does the government actually control?"

which is an argument that can be applied for everywhere

Edited July 17, 2011 by nurofiend

[animatic]

another statistic i came across is this

'The Thai economy almost doubled between 1990 and 1995 (from 2.2 to 4.2 trillion baht.)* But from 2000 to 2005, the economy grew more slowly (from 4.9 to 6.9 trillion baht.) Effectively, Thai GDP grew by 91% during the earlier period, but only by 41% during a period largely coinciding with Thaksin's rule

From 1990 to 1994, the percent of Thais living in poverty fell from 34% to 18%.

From 2000 to 2004 the percent in poverty fell from 21% to 11%.

During both periods, the percentage of Thais classified as poor decreased by almost half, despite the slower economic growth of the second period.'

this shows that thaksin governments policies did have an impact i think

also, i just wanna clear up, i'm not pro-thaksin at all... i just believe in looking at things impartially and taking people up on their views if i see them as biased

No it shows that

Poverty increased post '97 , after Chavalit, with Thaksin one step behind him,

crashed the Asian Tiger and caused the start of the AFC.

Which caused an increase in Thailand general poverty from 18% to 21%.

Which the Chuan government worked hard to fix,

tough medicine that eventually worked.

Then as Asia as whole recovered, and the world economy was booming,

Thaksin admin. 1 reaped benefits, that it can't possibly see this time around in a very bad world economy.

But that in 00-04, because of a WORLD economy greatly improved and the recovery of Asia as a whole there was a parellel connected drop in Thai poverty levels.

The greatly increased infrastructure and surviving investments from the pre '97 spike in investment and productivity, was still there when the regional economy returned to growth, so this benefited faster the lowering of poverty yet again. NBot from Thaksins doing but from basic structural changes from before his time.

But remember who crashed the regional economy while in office,

and who fixed it taking a hit for hard choices made,

and who takes credit for the work of others, even to this day

so you're saying poverty increased for a period when thaksin was in power?

and you're saying that none of the policies introduced by thaksin lowered poverty?

No I am saying

the drop in poverty from Thaksin 1 was caused more by a recovered regional economy coupled to existing infrastructure quickly put back to work.

That he was partly responsible for causing the 3% of 18% 21% in increased poverty in '97-2000 Making his 21-11% or 10% lowering of poverty 2000-04 to actually being only 7% from where it was linearly progressing, before Chavalit and Thaksin standing with him, screwed the pooch for Asia. In other words he successfully raised poverty before the regional economy lowered it again by recovering.

That the return to productivity of the whole region had more to do with it than Thaksins policies, but he took credit for it all big time. He's much better at PR than economics.

That the policies that brought growth and lowered poverty again were from Chuan, and the IMF, not Thaksin. But Thaksin takes credit for anything he thinks makes him look best and truth is irrelevant....and he vilifies those who don't side with him. As seen by these recent election promises and back tracking. He did have a better economy to throw public money around with and build on his legend as 'Savior of the Issan People vs the evil Bangkok Elite.' But he didn't in any appreciable way create that economic windfall he benefited from and abused.

Edited July 17, 2011 by animatic

[BOS2BKK]

Does anyone get the feeling we have been here before?

On the plus side, the Army has come out and said enough is enough. Even a totally corrupt court will think twice about a ruling that the Army is unwilling to enforce.

[animatic]

Does anyone get the feeling we have been here before?

On the plus side, the Army has come out and said enough is enough. Even a totally corrupt court will think twice about a ruling that the Army is unwilling to enforce.

So you are saying the PTP will ignore the EC and court rulings?

[nurofiend]

another statistic i came across is this

'The Thai economy almost doubled between 1990 and 1995 (from 2.2 to 4.2 trillion baht.)* But from 2000 to 2005, the economy grew more slowly (from 4.9 to 6.9 trillion baht.) Effectively, Thai GDP grew by 91% during the earlier period, but only by 41% during a period largely coinciding with Thaksin's rule

From 1990 to 1994, the percent of Thais living in poverty fell from 34% to 18%.

From 2000 to 2004 the percent in poverty fell from 21% to 11%.

During both periods, the percentage of Thais classified as poor decreased by almost half, despite the slower economic growth of the second period.'

this shows that thaksin governments policies did have an impact i think

also, i just wanna clear up, i'm not pro-thaksin at all... i just believe in looking at things impartially and taking people up on their views if i see them as biased

No it shows that

Poverty increased post '97 , after Chavalit, with Thaksin one step behind him,

crashed the Asian Tiger and caused the start of the AFC.

Which caused an increase in Thailand general poverty from 18% to 21%.

Which the Chuan government worked hard to fix,

tough medicine that eventually worked.

Then as Asia as whole recovered, and the world economy was booming,

Thaksin admin. 1 reaped benefits, that it can't possibly see this time around in a very bad world economy.

But that in 00-04, because of a WORLD economy greatly improved and the recovery of Asia as a whole there was a parellel connected drop in Thai poverty levels.

The greatly increased infrastructure and surviving investments from the pre '97 spike in investment and productivity, was still there when the regional economy returned to growth, so this benefited faster the lowering of poverty yet again. NBot from Thaksins doing but from basic structural changes from before his time.

But remember who crashed the regional economy while in office,

and who fixed it taking a hit for hard choices made,

and who takes credit for the work of others, even to this day

so you're saying poverty increased for a period when thaksin was in power?

and you're saying that none of the policies introduced by thaksin lowered poverty?

No I am saying

the drop in poverty from Thaksin 1 was caused more by a recovered regional economy coupled to existing infrastructure quickly put back to work.

That he was partly responsible for causing the 3% of 18% 21% in increased poverty in '97-2000 Making his 21-11% or 10% lowering of poverty 2000-04 to actually being only 7% from where it was linearly progressing, before Chavalit and Thaksin standing with him, screwed the pooch for Asia. In other words he successfully raised poverty before the regional economy lowered it again by recovering.

That the return to productivity of the whole region had more to do with it than Thaksins policies, but he took credit for it all big time. He's much better at PR than economics.

That the policies that brought growth and lowered poverty again were from Chuan, and the IMF, not Thaksin. But Thaksin takes credit for anything he thinks makes him look best and truth is irrelevant....and he vilifies those who don't side with him. As seen by these recent election promises and back tracking. He did have a better economy to throw public money around with and build on his legend as 'Savior of the Issan People vs the evil Bangkok Elite.' But he didn't in any appreciable way create that economic windfall he benefited from and abused.

my original point from the start was taking issue with someone that asked about how much the mafia has to do with the large vote received in the north

i said i wonder is it more probable that it's because the poverty line decreased by half when he was in power, and that was mainly felt in the north

i'm talking about when he was prime minister and how the voters would perceive this and why they would vote for him

i never once claimed or beleived that all this was down to him and he's some great economic mastermind or anything of the sort

however i do consider that some of the so called 'thaksinomics' did make a difference in these figures but obviously they were far from the only factor

[BOS2BKK]

Chamlong Srimuang wants a new election because he didn't get to put in a NO vote?

When k. Chamlong came to vote, he couldn't because his name was still on the 'advance-voting' list, he should have voted the week before. He was told he could lodge a complaint. Seems he did. Democratic right, etc., etc.

Forget about getting a new election now though, that would be a bit ridiculous, but at least once more attention is put on the advance voting issue. For next time it should really be changed into a 'one off' choice automatically withdrawn after an election

What are the numbers for this election? I think 2 Million is not enough to sway the vote. If there is a mathematical impossibility for the missing votes to change the outcome, then there is no point. I have not seen any raw numbers for this election, but I understand turnout was pretty high, and the vote was a landslide.

[BOS2BKK]

Does anyone get the feeling we have been here before?

On the plus side, the Army has come out and said enough is enough. Even a totally corrupt court will think twice about a ruling that the Army is unwilling to enforce.

So you are saying the PTP will ignore the EC and court rulings?

I am saying even the ridiculously corrupt court that invalidated the last two elections that had identical results will hopefully think twice about it this time without the generals backing their play.

This is getting ridiculous. How many mandates from the populous do they need? I think the elite will not be happy until they plunge the country into full on civil war. They almost did it last spring. The army sees it. The "Let them eat cake" deluded arrogance is alive and well in Thailand. Remember it cost those elite their heads.

I am saying...when a government...including the courts...no longer represents the will of the people, it is the peoples duty to remove them, by election if possible, by force of arms if necessary. I love Thailand, it is my adopted home. I hate to think that it will be in revolution if the courts nullify yet another landslide election, but I fear that is the only result that they will accept.

[animatic]

my original point from the start was taking issue with someone that asked about how much the mafia has to do with the large vote received in the north

i said i wonder is it more probable that it's because the poverty line decreased by half when he was in power, and that was mainly felt in the north

i'm talking about when he was prime minister and how the voters would perceive this and why they would vote for him

i never once claimed or beleived that all this was down to him and he's some great economic mastermind or anything of the sort

however i do consider that some of the so called 'thaksinomics' did make a difference in these figures but obviously they were far from the only factor

Thaksinomics, as others have labeled it, has been roundly debunked by real world economists as not well founded on economic reality, but very much on political PR work.

He took a newly rolling economy and gave a few perks to the control mechanism figures, like village head men and local influencials in the North and NE with the aim of solidifying their positions and control and making them indebted to his machine for this. He used public money and lots of PR back slapping to make it look like he did it for the good of the people.

This was pure feudalism patronage.

He targeted the north as a voting block long ignored, and then used divide and conquer tactics to increase the perception of a social divide that only HE can repair. Of course by creating 'evil elite boogie men' as the reason the poor are poor. Ignoring the localized components of their penury, and co-opting those elements as his own control levers.

Also add in unworkable rice pledging schemes, that trickled a little down to the poor, and lots to the millers and middlemen making them indebted to his largese to and willing to manipulate the poor to keep their gravy train running.

He spent 10+ years creating and honing a political machine often using public money to make the deals, to generate control and a legend for himself in the North NE. We have seen how successful that was on july 3rd.

His propaganda driven legend, and locked up control of what is heard and seen up north, over rides most all common sense in that area with a healthy dose of wishful thinking. He has his voting block via his political machine, and honed the legend to near demi-god status.

Edited July 17, 2011 by animatic

[nurofiend]

my original point from the start was taking issue with someone that asked about how much the mafia has to do with the large vote received in the north

i said i wonder is it more probable that it's because the poverty line decreased by half when he was in power, and that was mainly felt in the north

i'm talking about when he was prime minister and how the voters would perceive this and why they would vote for him

i never once claimed or beleived that all this was down to him and he's some great economic mastermind or anything of the sort

however i do consider that some of the so called 'thaksinomics' did make a difference in these figures but obviously they were far from the only factor

Thaksinomics, as others have labeled it, has been roundly debunked by real world economists as not well founded on economic reality, but very much on political PR work.

He took a newly rolling economy and gave a few perks to the control mechanism figures, like village head men and local influencials in the North and NE with the aim of solidifying their positions and control and making them indebted to his machine for this. He used public money and lots of PR back slapping to make it look like he did it for the good of the people.

This was pure feudalism patronage.

He targeted the north as a voting block long ignored, and then used divid an conquer tactics to increase the perception of a social divide that only HE can repair. Also add in unworkable rice pledging schemes, that trickled a little down to the poor, and lots to the millers and middlemen making them indebted to his pargese to and willing to manipulate the poor to keep their gravy train running.

He spent 10+ years creating and honing a political machine often using public money to make the deals, to generate control and a legend for himself in the North NE. We have seen how successful that was on july 3rd. His propaganda driven legend, and locked up control of what is heard and seen up north, over rides most all common sense in that area. He has his voting block via his political machine, and honed the legend to near demi-god status.

ok, let me ask you a straight yes or no question, do you think any of his policies implemented during his time as PM helped reduce the poverty line?

[animatic]

my original point from the start was taking issue with someone that asked about how much the mafia has to do with the large vote received in the north

i said i wonder is it more probable that it's because the poverty line decreased by half when he was in power, and that was mainly felt in the north

i'm talking about when he was prime minister and how the voters would perceive this and why they would vote for him

i never once claimed or beleived that all this was down to him and he's some great economic mastermind or anything of the sort

however i do consider that some of the so called 'thaksinomics' did make a difference in these figures but obviously they were far from the only factor

Thaksinomics, as others have labeled it, has been roundly debunked by real world economists as not well founded on economic reality, but very much on political PR work.

He took a newly rolling economy and gave a few perks to the control mechanism figures, like village head men and local influencials in the North and NE with the aim of solidifying their positions and control and making them indebted to his machine for this. He used public money and lots of PR back slapping to make it look like he did it for the good of the people.

This was pure feudalism patronage.

He targeted the north as a voting block long ignored, and then used divide and conquer tactics to increase the perception of a social divide that only HE can repair. Of course by creating 'evil elite boogie men' as the reason the poor are poor. Ignoring the localized components of their penury, and co-opting those elements as his own control levers.

Also add in unworkable rice pledging schemes, that trickled a little down to the poor, and lots to the millers and middlemen making them indebted to his largese to and willing to manipulate the poor to keep their gravy train running.

He spent 10+ years creating and honing a political machine often using public money to make the deals, to generate control and a legend for himself in the North NE. We have seen how successful that was on july 3rd.

His propaganda driven legend, and locked up control of what is heard and seen up north, over rides most all common sense in that area with a healthy dose of wishful thinking. He has his voting block via his political machine, and honed the legend to near demi-god status.

ok, let me ask you a straight yes or no question, do you think any of his policies implemented during his time as PM helped reduce the poverty line?

Some of them did, fractionally.

I doubt even 1% reduction was directly attributable to Thaksin in any way.

He benefited greatly from a regional upswing with existing infrastructure

put quickly back to work by the private sector.

But he took credit for many more that just were there before or intrinsically there,and some are more the appearance of and not the real fact of.

He did push the telecom sector forward, but you know that was mostly to benefit his interests, as we have seen, and he did it while hammering competitors at every turn from his position of authority.

No I don't think he did anything to help the N, NE poor that wasn't calculated to win him power in the most cynical of ways. And the actual benefit of his actions was not nearly as great as the returned economic growth of the whole region.

Edited July 17, 2011 by animatic

[hammered]

my original point from the start was taking issue with someone that asked about how much the mafia has to do with the large vote received in the north

i said i wonder is it more probable that it's because the poverty line decreased by half when he was in power, and that was mainly felt in the north

i'm talking about when he was prime minister and how the voters would perceive this and why they would vote for him

i never once claimed or beleived that all this was down to him and he's some great economic mastermind or anything of the sort

however i do consider that some of the so called 'thaksinomics' did make a difference in these figures but obviously they were far from the only factor

Thaksinomics, as others have labeled it, has been roundly debunked by real world economists as not well founded on economic reality, but very much on political PR work.

He took a newly rolling economy and gave a few perks to the control mechanism figures, like village head men and local influencials in the North and NE with the aim of solidifying their positions and control and making them indebted to his machine for this. He used public money and lots of PR back slapping to make it look like he did it for the good of the people.

This was pure feudalism patronage.

He targeted the north as a voting block long ignored, and then used divid an conquer tactics to increase the perception of a social divide that only HE can repair. Also add in unworkable rice pledging schemes, that trickled a little down to the poor, and lots to the millers and middlemen making them indebted to his pargese to and willing to manipulate the poor to keep their gravy train running.

He spent 10+ years creating and honing a political machine often using public money to make the deals, to generate control and a legend for himself in the North NE. We have seen how successful that was on july 3rd. His propaganda driven legend, and locked up control of what is heard and seen up north, over rides most all common sense in that area. He has his voting block via his political machine, and honed the legend to near demi-god status.

ok, let me ask you a straight yes or no question, do you think any of his policies implemented during his time as PM helped reduce the poverty line?

Nice meaningless intellectual deabte on here, but the people to ask are the thai electorate and particularly the poor. Do they think Thaksins policies helped them? They elect governments and so are the ones who count in what they think. I would hazard to guess that as they keep electing parties linked to the man, they probably think he did some good and as they keep rejecting other parties they likely think they have not done as much to help

[animatic]

my original point from the start was taking issue with someone that asked about how much the mafia has to do with the large vote received in the north

i said i wonder is it more probable that it's because the poverty line decreased by half when he was in power, and that was mainly felt in the north

i'm talking about when he was prime minister and how the voters would perceive this and why they would vote for him

i never once claimed or beleived that all this was down to him and he's some great economic mastermind or anything of the sort

however i do consider that some of the so called 'thaksinomics' did make a difference in these figures but obviously they were far from the only factor

Thaksinomics, as others have labeled it, has been roundly debunked by real world economists as not well founded on economic reality, but very much on political PR work.

He took a newly rolling economy and gave a few perks to the control mechanism figures, like village head men and local influencials in the North and NE with the aim of solidifying their positions and control and making them indebted to his machine for this. He used public money and lots of PR back slapping to make it look like he did it for the good of the people.

This was pure feudalism patronage.

He targeted the north as a voting block long ignored, and then used divid an conquer tactics to increase the perception of a social divide that only HE can repair. Also add in unworkable rice pledging schemes, that trickled a little down to the poor, and lots to the millers and middlemen making them indebted to his pargese to and willing to manipulate the poor to keep their gravy train running.

He spent 10+ years creating and honing a political machine often using public money to make the deals, to generate control and a legend for himself in the North NE. We have seen how successful that was on july 3rd. His propaganda driven legend, and locked up control of what is heard and seen up north, over rides most all common sense in that area. He has his voting block via his political machine, and honed the legend to near demi-god status.

ok, let me ask you a straight yes or no question, do you think any of his policies implemented during his time as PM helped reduce the poverty line?

Nice meaningless intellectual deabte on here, but the people to ask are the thai electorate and particularly the poor. Do they think Thaksins policies helped them? They elect governments and so are the ones who count in what they think. I would hazard to guess that as they keep electing parties linked to the man, they probably think he did some good and as they keep rejecting other parties they likely think they have not done as much to help

Or a lot of effort has been expended to keep them thinking this way.

[nurofiend]

my original point from the start was taking issue with someone that asked about how much the mafia has to do with the large vote received in the north

i said i wonder is it more probable that it's because the poverty line decreased by half when he was in power, and that was mainly felt in the north

i'm talking about when he was prime minister and how the voters would perceive this and why they would vote for him

i never once claimed or beleived that all this was down to him and he's some great economic mastermind or anything of the sort

however i do consider that some of the so called 'thaksinomics' did make a difference in these figures but obviously they were far from the only factor

Thaksinomics, as others have labeled it, has been roundly debunked by real world economists as not well founded on economic reality, but very much on political PR work.

He took a newly rolling economy and gave a few perks to the control mechanism figures, like village head men and local influencials in the North and NE with the aim of solidifying their positions and control and making them indebted to his machine for this. He used public money and lots of PR back slapping to make it look like he did it for the good of the people.

This was pure feudalism patronage.

He targeted the north as a voting block long ignored, and then used divid an conquer tactics to increase the perception of a social divide that only HE can repair. Also add in unworkable rice pledging schemes, that trickled a little down to the poor, and lots to the millers and middlemen making them indebted to his pargese to and willing to manipulate the poor to keep their gravy train running.

He spent 10+ years creating and honing a political machine often using public money to make the deals, to generate control and a legend for himself in the North NE. We have seen how successful that was on july 3rd. His propaganda driven legend, and locked up control of what is heard and seen up north, over rides most all common sense in that area. He has his voting block via his political machine, and honed the legend to near demi-god status.

ok, let me ask you a straight yes or no question, do you think any of his policies implemented during his time as PM helped reduce the poverty line?

Nice meaningless intellectual deabte on here, but the people to ask are the thai electorate and particularly the poor. Do they think Thaksins policies helped them? They elect governments and so are the ones who count in what they think. I would hazard to guess that as they keep electing parties linked to the man, they probably think he did some good and as they keep rejecting other parties they likely think they have not done as much to help

nice meaningless intellectual post there but you are saying exactly the same thing as what i am sayin

Edited July 17, 2011 by nurofiend

[animatic]

Does anyone get the feeling we have been here before?

On the plus side, the Army has come out and said enough is enough. Even a totally corrupt court will think twice about a ruling that the Army is unwilling to enforce.

So you are saying the PTP will ignore the EC and court rulings?

I am saying even the ridiculously corrupt court that invalidated the last two elections that had identical results will hopefully think twice about it this time without the generals backing their play.

This is getting ridiculous. How many mandates from the populous do they need? I think the elite will not be happy until they plunge the country into full on civil war. They almost did it last spring. The army sees it. The "Let them eat cake" deluded arrogance is alive and well in Thailand. Remember it cost those elite their heads.

I am saying...when a government...including the courts...no longer represents the will of the people, it is the peoples duty to remove them, by election if possible, by force of arms if necessary. I love Thailand, it is my adopted home. I hate to think that it will be in revolution if the courts nullify yet another landslide election, but I fear that is the only result that they will accept.

Which last two elections???

2006 was run improperly and the whole EC went to jail over it.

TRT was found guilty of cheating, not the courts fault.

2007 wasn't invalidate.

Samak could have been OPM the next day Thgaksin wanted Somchai

PP was found guilty of a different but similar charge, they did it.

If PTP had been half way organized they could have gotten

the government back, but they dropped the ball.

It seems that a political party getting caught cheating is to be forgiven if they won.

and so the convictions should not take place. Ignore the laws because they won.

[nurofiend]

Does anyone get the feeling we have been here before?

On the plus side, the Army has come out and said enough is enough. Even a totally corrupt court will think twice about a ruling that the Army is unwilling to enforce.

So you are saying the PTP will ignore the EC and court rulings?

I am saying even the ridiculously corrupt court that invalidated the last two elections that had identical results will hopefully think twice about it this time without the generals backing their play.

This is getting ridiculous. How many mandates from the populous do they need? I think the elite will not be happy until they plunge the country into full on civil war. They almost did it last spring. The army sees it. The "Let them eat cake" deluded arrogance is alive and well in Thailand. Remember it cost those elite their heads.

I am saying...when a government...including the courts...no longer represents the will of the people, it is the peoples duty to remove them, by election if possible, by force of arms if necessary. I love Thailand, it is my adopted home. I hate to think that it will be in revolution if the courts nullify yet another landslide election, but I fear that is the only result that they will accept.

Which last two elections???

2006 was run improperly and the whole EC went to jail over it.

TRT was found guilty of cheating, not the courts fault.

2007 wasn't invalidate.

Samak could have been OPM the next day Thgaksin wanted Somchai

PP was found guilty of a different but similar charge, they did it.

If PTP had been half way organized they could have gotten

the government back, but they dropped the ball.

It seems that a political party getting caught cheating is to be forgiven if they won.

and so the convictions should not take place. Ignore the laws because they won.

i can't believe how easily people will blindly believe that there were never any underhand plays used to get them out of power

but yeah i'm sure everything was done above board and there was no corruption involved

they're all as bad as each other imho

[hammered]

Or a lot of effort has been expended to keep them thinking this way.

Of course there are elements of this. We are talking politicians. There has also been a lot of effort to try and show it isnt true. Usually in politics though you believe the side you favour and reject the others statements. Also when people are poor they are usually pretty good at judging when they have more or less to spend as when they have less they usually have to cut things and that is remembered.

[animatic]

BOS2BKK timestamp='1310874930' post='4563970'

Does anyone get the feeling we have been here before?

On the plus side, the Army has come out and said enough is enough. Even a totally corrupt court will think twice about a ruling that the Army is unwilling to enforce.

So you are saying the PTP will ignore the EC and court rulings?

I am saying even the ridiculously corrupt court that invalidated the last two elections that had identical results will hopefully think twice about it this time without the generals backing their play.

This is getting ridiculous. How many mandates from the populous do they need? I think the elite will not be happy until they plunge the country into full on civil war. They almost did it last spring. The army sees it. The "Let them eat cake" deluded arrogance is alive and well in Thailand. Remember it cost those elite their heads.

I am saying...when a government...including the courts...no longer represents the will of the people, it is the peoples duty to remove them, by election if possible, by force of arms if necessary. I love Thailand, it is my adopted home. I hate to think that it will be in revolution if the courts nullify yet another landslide election, but I fear that is the only result that they will accept.

Which last two elections???

2006 was run improperly and the whole EC went to jail over it.

TRT was found guilty of cheating, not the courts fault.

2007 wasn't invalidate.

Samak could have been OPM the next day Thgaksin wanted Somchai

PP was found guilty of a different but similar charge, they did it.

If PTP had been half way organized they could have gotten

the government back, but they dropped the ball.

It seems that a political party getting caught cheating is to be forgiven if they won.

and so the convictions should not take place. Ignore the laws because they won.

i can't believe how easily people will blindly believe that there were never any underhand plays used to get them out of power

but yeah i'm sure everything was done above board and there was no corruption involved

they're all as bad as each other imho

Were they set up?

Who can say.

Were they not sharp enough to avoid getting convicted certainly.

TRT was the 1st time, they got caught trying to circumvent the 20% rule for running unopposed.

and some can argue they never expected a real application of the laws.

But then again the laws existed and they got caught...

they should have assumed it was possibly.

PPP should clearly have known better, and Samak too.

They got nailed for election fraud at the leadership level.

Arrogance likely the cause..

PTP ineptitude caused their not regaining the government.

Some other powers moved faster than they did.

In the same way they would have, money and favors and cabinet seats.

Do I imagine there was nothing underhanded?

HA. this is Thailand of course there was.

I've read the court reports translated, TRT and PPP deserved to go down.

I guess you are saying that

'actually enforcing the laws is against the will of the people, so democracy is only winning the numbers anyway you can, and not doing so within the laws as written at the time.'

If the largest win is done via cheating and illegal moves, then it is not a true win, but a stolen win. Oh, we got the most votes, so you can't prosecute us and we will call it a shame corrupt court ruling if you do.

I can't believe that some people believe

a win through fraud is still a legal win.

Edited July 17, 2011 by animatic

[nurofiend]

my original point from the start was taking issue with someone that asked about how much the mafia has to do with the large vote received in the north

i said i wonder is it more probable that it's because the poverty line decreased by half when he was in power, and that was mainly felt in the north

i'm talking about when he was prime minister and how the voters would perceive this and why they would vote for him

i never once claimed or beleived that all this was down to him and he's some great economic mastermind or anything of the sort

however i do consider that some of the so called 'thaksinomics' did make a difference in these figures but obviously they were far from the only factor

Thaksinomics, as others have labeled it, has been roundly debunked by real world economists as not well founded on economic reality, but very much on political PR work.

He took a newly rolling economy and gave a few perks to the control mechanism figures, like village head men and local influencials in the North and NE with the aim of solidifying their positions and control and making them indebted to his machine for this. He used public money and lots of PR back slapping to make it look like he did it for the good of the people.

This was pure feudalism patronage.

He targeted the north as a voting block long ignored, and then used divide and conquer tactics to increase the perception of a social divide that only HE can repair. Of course by creating 'evil elite boogie men' as the reason the poor are poor. Ignoring the localized components of their penury, and co-opting those elements as his own control levers.

Also add in unworkable rice pledging schemes, that trickled a little down to the poor, and lots to the millers and middlemen making them indebted to his largese to and willing to manipulate the poor to keep their gravy train running.

He spent 10+ years creating and honing a political machine often using public money to make the deals, to generate control and a legend for himself in the North NE. We have seen how successful that was on july 3rd.

His propaganda driven legend, and locked up control of what is heard and seen up north, over rides most all common sense in that area with a healthy dose of wishful thinking. He has his voting block via his political machine, and honed the legend to near demi-god status.

ok, let me ask you a straight yes or no question, do you think any of his policies implemented during his time as PM helped reduce the poverty line?

Some of them did, fractionally.

I doubt even 1% reduction was directly attributable to Thaksin in any way.

He benefited greatly from a regional upswing with existing infrastructure

put quickly back to work by the private sector.

But he took credit for many more that just were there before or intrinsically there,and some are more the appearance of and not the real fact of.

He did push the telecom sector forward, but you know that was mostly to benefit his interests, as we have seen, and he did it while hammering competitors at every turn from his position of authority.

No I don't think he did anything to help the N, NE poor that wasn't calculated to win him power in the most cynical of ways. And the actual benefit of his actions was not nearly as great as the returned economic growth of the whole region.

oh i don't doubt his cronyism or ulterior motives.

i was talking about why the north would vote for him and i believe my answer has been correct from the start

[nurofiend]

Do I imagine there was nothing underhanded?

HA. this is Thailand of course there was.

I've read the court reports translated, TRT and PPP deserved to go down.

well at least we agree on that!

ok well i haven't read that so i can't argue on whether they deserved or not

it still all stinks to me tho

[chooka]

The elite yellow shirts did not win so they say the votes are invalid. The people made a mistake and voted for the wrong people is that it? Just accept it the majority do not love you.

[animatic]

I can't believe that some people believe

a win through fraud is still a legal win.

[animatic]

The elite yellow shirts did not win so they say the votes are invalid. The people made a mistake and voted for the wrong people is that it? Just accept it the majority do not love you.

Certainly they have busloads of sour grapes.

[nurofiend]

I can't believe that some people believe

a win through fraud is still a legal win.

who believes that?

Edited July 17, 2011 by nurofiend

[animatic]

I can't believe that some people believe

a win through fraud is still a legal win.

who believes that?

It seems many do or use it as a strawman argument to not prosecute winners.

My argument is that prosecuting them for fraud and convicting them

and removing the leadership is 'removing an illegal government',

But not removing the rights of legally elected MPs from the party.

This effects leadership and party hierarchy /organization only

They can still form a new government with new unconvicted leadership

based on the same majority of elected MPS..

It's not like there isn't plenty of advanced warnings about this.

Edited July 17, 2011 by animatic

[lungmi]

another statistic i came across is this

'The Thai economy almost doubled between 1990 and 1995 (from 2.2 to 4.2 trillion baht.)* But from 2000 to 2005, the economy grew more slowly (from 4.9 to 6.9 trillion baht.) Effectively, Thai GDP grew by 91% during the earlier period, but only by 41% during a period largely coinciding with Thaksin's rule

From 1990 to 1994, the percent of Thais living in poverty fell from 34% to 18%.

From 2000 to 2004 the percent in poverty fell from 21% to 11%.

During both periods, the percentage of Thais classified as poor decreased by almost half, despite the slower economic growth of the second period.'

this shows that thaksin governments policies did have an impact i think

also, i just wanna clear up, i'm not pro-thaksin at all... i just believe in looking at things impartially and taking people up on their views if i see them as biased

No it shows that

Poverty increased post '97 , after Chavalit, with Thaksin one step behind him,

crashed the Asian Tiger and caused the start of the AFC.

Which caused an increase in Thailand general poverty from 18% to 21%.

Which the Chuan government worked hard to fix,

tough medicine that eventually worked.

Then as Asia as whole recovered, and the world economy was booming,

Thaksin admin. 1 reaped benefits, that it can't possibly see this time around in a very bad world economy.

But that in 00-04, because of a WORLD economy greatly improved and the recovery of Asia as a whole there was a parellel connected drop in Thai poverty levels.

The greatly increased infrastructure and surviving investments from the pre '97 spike in investment and productivity, was still there when the regional economy returned to growth, so this benefited faster the lowering of poverty yet again. NBot from Thaksins doing but from basic structural changes from before his time.

But remember who crashed the regional economy while in office,

and who fixed it taking a hit for hard choices made,

and who takes credit for the work of others, even to this day.

The currency and the rice stock cheating of Chavalit at this time is famous. For the rice stock he (or the government) paid best Thai rice to sell abroad, and filled the rice stock with cheap rice from Asean countries. The difference evaporated.

Something is happen with the BHT now. It doesn't work in the same style.

[kimamey]

Maybe it wouldn't be such a bad idea to call a new election in 60 days time and allow campaigning for a period of 30 days only. I expect that the PTP would win an even bigger margin and then this nonsense could be stopped.

That would be fine. But Thaksin has to back off. No proxies. No Thaksin Thinks BS. In other words, Yingluck is a TAINTED brand and she isn't even PM yet. PTP did this to themselves. They aren't legitimate because of the blatant proxy tactic.

Spot on. There will always be slight irregularities but the involvement of Thaksin and other banned persons was stupid. Anyone with any sense and enough intelligence to think they could run the country should have realised that anything like this would provoke complaint. The losers will always complain but it's ridiculous to so blatantly give them the legal ammunition. Unless that was the intention as part of some bizarre plan to create turmoil although I can't see what the advantage would be for the PTP.

[Huey]

And so it begins, the struggle for justice against the wicked Pied Piper and his red rats. I hope they succeed, and only wish I could do something to help.

[metisdead]

A rather nonsensical inflammatory post and reply has been removed.