Anti-Coup Moves Designed To Help Thaksin, Democrats Say

[Insight]

The Democrat supporters above seem to be suffering from severe case of sour grapes.

Both sides contested the election vigorously.

Elections the world over are dirty and promises made by all sides but in the end the voters decide.

The PTP won.

Get over it.

Yep, all opposition parties the world over should give up, pack up and leave the winners to it.

You haven't been attending "democracy schools" up north, by any chance?

[somo]

The Democrat supporters above seem to be suffering from severe case of sour grapes.

Both sides contested the election vigorously.

Elections the world over are dirty and promises made by all sides but in the end the voters decide.

The PTP won.

Get over it.

Yep, all opposition parties the world over should give up, pack up and leave the winners to it.

You haven't been attending "democracy schools" up north, by any chance?

No I haven't but do believe the winners should govern and not be threatened with another illegal coup

just because a minority don't like the election result. Sure both sides fought as dirty as they could get away with

but the people spoke and moaning about it now is just sour grapes.

Your team lost, accept it and try to make constructive suggestions as to how they they can improve their appeal to the electorate. Crying "fix" or calling for a coup is not going to help and certainly doesn't help your cause.

The democrats lost so now their supporters think another coup would be a good idea.

[looping]

The recent ABAC poll comparing Yingluck and Abhisit's popularity during their PM tenures makes interesting reading. Neither comes out top but Abhisit fails to break the 20% mark in any catagory or location and mostly hovers below 15% iirc while Yingluck bounces around in the 30s and breaks into the 40s on occasion. Abhisit's unpopularity is the story of that poll. It also begs the question of why would a party want such an unpopular person leading it

Problem is, those villagers in Issan can't see beyond the borders of their own village, and why should they? How could they be expected to understand policies which don't represent a simple cash for vote equation? THAT'S why T won.

The dems don't win elections because they have real policies which people don't understand.

Edited September 27, 2011 by looping

[nurofiend]

The dems don't win elections because they have real policies which people don't understand.

examples?

[lannarebirth]

That's certainly one view. But those who have a slightly more intelligent take on the election may think that the manipulation that went on for two years, masterminded by the exile and his international cronies, which played on the fears and prejudices of the mass (some may say 'kwais') resulted in this farce of an election in which PTP won 35% of the nation's support. Now let me see. Yes, one example of how the reds tried to deny a legitimate voice to the Dems: Thousands of Abhisit posters were defaced around the country, but very few PTP posters were touched. Dem canvassers were not allowed to canvass in villages controlled by the reds. PTP fully understood their new slogan "Thaksin orders, PTP bribes". They had no policies only bribes. The Democracy training schools in Isaan and the North were designed not to teach democratic principles but to teach hate and fear. And so on it goes. Unacceptable behaviour manipulated by the one person who thinks he owns the country, its wealth, its people and its judicial systems. Under such circumstances PTP were bound to win. As for talking 'sh..' as the OP claims, I think if we just but blind prejudice aside we'd find a raft of policies within the Dems and also many achievements whilst in power. These were in the face of terrible opposition, such as the riots which made a response to the Red (Thaksin) agenda a priority thus stopping or delaying many policies that would have been to the benefit of the people. Unlike PTP who's every policy only benefits Thaksin & his cronies. Open your eyes, OP, and see what is really happening.

It is so edifying to have a self declared "more intelligent take".

The problem is this "take" ignores what the "kwais" have declared in election after election after election ----- They do not want the Democrats!!

whybother

Democrats - 2007 election - 165 seats. 2011 election - 159 seats. Not much change really.

Actually this recent election is the second best ever result achieved by the Democrats this century. Go the Dems!!

As for your comments re defaced Abhisit posters -- If you cannot understand the immense indignation felt by many for a PM and party who achieved power -- not through the electoral process -- but by barrack room deals and the purchase of the grubbiest of MPs --- then I wish you well.

It is amazing the Democrat apologists simply ignore repeated election results.

What is constantly amazing to me is how many people disregard the Rule Of Law as the fundamental principle that makes a democracy a democracy. Votes are irrelevant if there is no rule of law.

[nurofiend]

That's certainly one view. But those who have a slightly more intelligent take on the election may think that the manipulation that went on for two years, masterminded by the exile and his international cronies, which played on the fears and prejudices of the mass (some may say 'kwais') resulted in this farce of an election in which PTP won 35% of the nation's support. Now let me see. Yes, one example of how the reds tried to deny a legitimate voice to the Dems: Thousands of Abhisit posters were defaced around the country, but very few PTP posters were touched. Dem canvassers were not allowed to canvass in villages controlled by the reds. PTP fully understood their new slogan "Thaksin orders, PTP bribes". They had no policies only bribes. The Democracy training schools in Isaan and the North were designed not to teach democratic principles but to teach hate and fear. And so on it goes. Unacceptable behaviour manipulated by the one person who thinks he owns the country, its wealth, its people and its judicial systems. Under such circumstances PTP were bound to win. As for talking 'sh..' as the OP claims, I think if we just but blind prejudice aside we'd find a raft of policies within the Dems and also many achievements whilst in power. These were in the face of terrible opposition, such as the riots which made a response to the Red (Thaksin) agenda a priority thus stopping or delaying many policies that would have been to the benefit of the people. Unlike PTP who's every policy only benefits Thaksin & his cronies. Open your eyes, OP, and see what is really happening.

It is so edifying to have a self declared "more intelligent take".

The problem is this "take" ignores what the "kwais" have declared in election after election after election ----- They do not want the Democrats!!

whybother

Democrats - 2007 election - 165 seats. 2011 election - 159 seats. Not much change really.

Actually this recent election is the second best ever result achieved by the Democrats this century. Go the Dems!!

As for your comments re defaced Abhisit posters -- If you cannot understand the immense indignation felt by many for a PM and party who achieved power -- not through the electoral process -- but by barrack room deals and the purchase of the grubbiest of MPs --- then I wish you well.

It is amazing the Democrat apologists simply ignore repeated election results.

What is constantly amazing to me is how many people disregard the Rule Of Law as the fundamental principle that makes a democracy a democracy. Votes are irrelevant if there is no rule of law.

what a load of garbage... no rule of law = anarchy, are you saying the country was in a state of anarchy at the time?!

tell me why it took until just within a month or two before there was inevitably going to be a general election, to stage a coup? try taking off your one sided hat for one minute and just think logically about that point.

if you're argument is that the government in power had the people 'fooled' and this equated to a bigger electorate than the opposition could counter... it's not up to the opposition to decide on whether people are being 'fooled'.. that's not democracy, you can't argue on the side of democracy while defending an undemocratic coup... it's a paradox.

[Insight]

The Democrat supporters above seem to be suffering from severe case of sour grapes.

Both sides contested the election vigorously.

Elections the world over are dirty and promises made by all sides but in the end the voters decide.

The PTP won.

Get over it.

Yep, all opposition parties the world over should give up, pack up and leave the winners to it.

You haven't been attending "democracy schools" up north, by any chance?

No I haven't but do believe the winners should govern and not be threatened with another illegal coup

just because a minority don't like the election result. Sure both sides fought as dirty as they could get away with

but the people spoke and moaning about it now is just sour grapes.

Your team lost, accept it and try to make constructive suggestions as to how they they can improve their appeal to the electorate. Crying "fix" or calling for a coup is not going to help and certainly doesn't help your cause.

The democrats lost so now their supporters think another coup would be a good idea.

Who is vocally supporting a coup here or in the Democrats?

[rubl]

The dems don't win elections because they have real policies which people don't understand.

examples?

Free Health Care instead of a 30-baht scheme. The difference being only the 30-baht and it's administration without effecting the health care

[tig28]

It's amazing to me that people like you can't see that the two PM's prior to Abhisit two PM's prior to Abhisit came to power in the exact same way... so why weren't they indignant about those two? Oh right right they were from the party they supported so they are only angry because their guy was not installed again for a third time.. funny how the Red apologists seem to always ignore that fact. Never once did I hear about the those two PMs not being elected by the people...

Carry on, amazing thailand indeed.. banana republic mixed with the ultimate cluster fuc_k... heaven on earth.

Wow -- an even newer and better review of history ... I must have missed the part where either of "the two PM's prior to Abhisit" purchased MPs from the cross benches to be able to pervert the declared will of the electorate. (Gotta just hate those elections!!)

The purchase price was five very lucrative Ministries --- and (cunningly) paid for not by the Democrats-- but by the Thai taxpayer. A nice touch that!

Yep ...absolutely no doubt about it ... " two PM's prior to Abhisit came to power in the exact same way..."

None are so blind as those that CHOOSE not to see

[whybother]

Wow -- an even newer and better review of history ... I must have missed the part where either of "the two PM's prior to Abhisit" purchased MPs from the cross benches to be able to pervert the declared will of the electorate. (Gotta just hate those elections!!)

The purchase price was five very lucrative Ministries --- and (cunningly) paid for not by the Democrats-- but by the Thai taxpayer. A nice touch that!

Yep ...absolutely no doubt about it ... " two PM's prior to Abhisit came to power in the exact same way..."

Do you mean that none of the PPP's coalition partners got ministries?

If the declared will of the electorate was for the PPP to be in government, then the PPP would have got a majority of the vote, wouldn't it?

[lannarebirth]

It is so edifying to have a self declared "more intelligent take".

The problem is this "take" ignores what the "kwais" have declared in election after election after election ----- They do not want the Democrats!!

whybother

Democrats - 2007 election - 165 seats. 2011 election - 159 seats. Not much change really.

Actually this recent election is the second best ever result achieved by the Democrats this century. Go the Dems!!

As for your comments re defaced Abhisit posters -- If you cannot understand the immense indignation felt by many for a PM and party who achieved power -- not through the electoral process -- but by barrack room deals and the purchase of the grubbiest of MPs --- then I wish you well.

It is amazing the Democrat apologists simply ignore repeated election results.

What is constantly amazing to me is how many people disregard the Rule Of Law as the fundamental principle that makes a democracy a democracy. Votes are irrelevant if there is no rule of law.

what a load of garbage... no rule of law = anarchy, are you saying the country was in a state of anarchy at the time?!

tell me why it took until just within a month or two before there was inevitably going to be a general election, to stage a coup? try taking off your one sided hat for one minute and just think logically about that point.

if you're argument is that the government in power had the people 'fooled' and this equated to a bigger electorate than the opposition could counter... it's not up to the opposition to decide on whether people are being 'fooled'.. that's not democracy, you can't argue on the side of democracy while defending an undemocratic coup... it's a paradox.

I'm not arguing on the side of democracy, I was pointing out there is no democracy here as the rule of law in non extant. If I'm one sided it is because it is my opinion, given the current state of Thai political affairs that there is one side that is even more dangerous to Thailand's future and that of it's citizens than the other. Im not arguing any part of the process here is democratic, because it isn't.

Edited September 28, 2011 by lannarebirth

[tig28]

[Do you mean that none of the PPP's coalition partners got ministries?

If the declared will of the electorate was for the PPP to be in government, then the PPP would have got a majority of the vote, wouldn't it?

"If the declared will of the electorate was for the PPP to be in government, then the PPP would have got a majority of the vote, wouldn't it?"

No whybother .. Even in a simple two party election one of the parties can (mathematically) win a majority of the seats with just 26% of the vote. In a multi-party election (such as Thailand) the % gained by the winner can be much lower. All this illustrates is the pointlessness of referring to % of votes in relationship to the number of seats won.

"Do you mean that none of the PPP's coalition partners got ministries?"

Again no. I suggest there is a vast difference between inviting some smaller parties to join with the majority election winner to form a coalition (after an election) and then allowing them participation via some ministries ------ (the norm in Thailand--as in other countries)

------- and a minority opposition party offering huge bribes to selected MPs of the then governing party to get them to defect from the party those MPs were elected to represent.This fairly obviously perverts the votes of the people who elected these MPs.

Just as a side observation -- it is also fairly apparent now that they paid far too much for the "friends of Newin." (the price was about one ministry per five defectors--- that is pretty expensive)

Also whybother .... do you believe that the "friends of Newin" would have defected without those Ministries being gifted to them? Where do they go from here?

[whybother]

"If the declared will of the electorate was for the PPP to be in government, then the PPP would have got a majority of the vote, wouldn't it?"

No whybother .. Even in a simple two party election one of the parties can (mathematically) win a majority of the seats with just 26% of the vote. In a multi-party election (such as Thailand) the % gained by the winner can be much lower. All this illustrates is the pointlessness of referring to % of votes in relationship to the number of seats won.

But the PPP didn't get a majority of the vote OR a majority of seats. They NEEDED the smaller parties otherwise they wouldn't have been able to form government. Do you think these smaller parties decided to join the PPP out of the goodness of their hearts, even though some of them campaigned that they wouldn't join with the PPP.

"Do you mean that none of the PPP's coalition partners got ministries?"

Again no. I suggest there is a vast difference between inviting some smaller parties to join with the majority election winner to form a coalition (after an election) and then allowing them participation via some ministries ------ (the norm in Thailand--as in other countries)

See my response to your first statement ... then go and do some research.

------- and a minority opposition party offering huge bribes to selected MPs of the then governing party to get them to defect from the party those MPs were elected to represent.This fairly obviously perverts the votes of the people who elected these MPs.

Just as a side observation -- it is also fairly apparent now that they paid far too much for the "friends of Newin." (the price was about one ministry per five defectors--- that is pretty expensive)

Also whybother .... do you believe that the "friends of Newin" would have defected without those Ministries being gifted to them? Where do they go from here?

The "friends of Newin" didn't join the PTP and formed their own party after the PPP was banned, and that was before they sided with the Democrats. Maybe the Democrats did give them too much. They probably would have gone for less.

Even the PTP offered coalition partners ministries ... and the PTP did get a majority.

[rixalex]

It's amazing to me that people like you can't see that the two PM's prior to Abhisit two PM's prior to Abhisit came to power in the exact same way... so why weren't they indignant about those two? Oh right right they were from the party they supported so they are only angry because their guy was not installed again for a third time.. funny how the Red apologists seem to always ignore that fact. Never once did I hear about the those two PMs not being elected by the people...

Carry on, amazing thailand indeed.. banana republic mixed with the ultimate cluster fuc_k... heaven on earth.

Wow -- an even newer and better review of history ... I must have missed the part where either of "the two PM's prior to Abhisit" purchased MPs from the cross benches to be able to pervert the declared will of the electorate. (Gotta just hate those elections!!)

The purchase price was five very lucrative Ministries --- and (cunningly) paid for not by the Democrats-- but by the Thai taxpayer. A nice touch that!

Yep ...absolutely no doubt about it ... " two PM's prior to Abhisit came to power in the exact same way..."

There was horse-trading going on in the appointment of all three PMs, and horse-trading is always ugly - nature of the business. PPP's coalition was formed with the backing of parties that had campaigned on the promise that they would not work with PPP. Do you not consider this also perverting the declared will of the electorate? You should do, if consistency bothers you.

[tig28]

But the PPP didn't get a majority of the vote OR a majority of seats. They NEEDED the smaller parties otherwise they wouldn't have been able to form government. Do you think these smaller parties decided to join the PPP out of the goodness of their hearts, even though some of them campaigned that they wouldn't join with the PPP.

The "friends of Newin" didn't join the PTP and formed their own party after the PPP was banned, and that was before they sided with the Democrats.

Certainly not out of the goodness of their hearts --- but a fully expected and normal arrangement.. A Government shall be formed by the majority winner -- and the smaller players never want to be left out in the wilderness.

I believe that the only democratically elected majority Thai government was that of the TRT in 2005. They also chose to form a coalition. Of course all other Governments were formed as you describe -- it is the norm --- not only in Thailand. I fail to see the point you make.

Of course the minor coalition partners negotiate the best position they can. It is a gigantic reach to suggest that this normal necessary practice in anyway relates to the purchase of the friends of Newin -- who were elected as PPP MPs -- not as anything else certainly not as pseudo - Democrats.

"and that was before they sided with the Democrats."

I doubt that even you believe that!

[tig28]

There was horse-trading going on in the appointment of all three PMs, and horse-trading is always ugly - nature of the business. PPP's coalition was formed with the backing of parties that had campaigned on the promise that they would not work with PPP. Do you not consider this also perverting the declared will of the electorate? You should do, if consistency bothers you.

Simple answer --- Yes.

But I suspect you know there is more to it than just that. With the PPP being just 15 seats short of an outright majority --- every one of the five minor parties was clamoring to get a seat at the table. In the stampede did some of them forget past assurances? Yes.

[rixalex]

There was horse-trading going on in the appointment of all three PMs, and horse-trading is always ugly - nature of the business. PPP's coalition was formed with the backing of parties that had campaigned on the promise that they would not work with PPP. Do you not consider this also perverting the declared will of the electorate? You should do, if consistency bothers you.

Simple answer --- Yes.

But I suspect you know there is more to it than just that. With the PPP being just 15 seats short of an outright majority --- every one of the five minor parties was clamoring to get a seat at the table. In the stampede did some of them forget past assurances? Yes.

Well ok then. We are agreed. There was some fishy business going on in the appointment of all three PMs - Samak, Somchai and Abhisit. But the red shirts only had a problem when it came to the third of those three, and that was simply because he wasn't from the party they support.

[tig28]

Well ok then. We are agreed. There was some fishy business going on in the appointment of all three PMs - Samak, Somchai and Abhisit. But the red shirts only had a problem when it came to the third of those three, and that was simply because he wasn't from the party they support.

Well ... we agree on the main point of your previous post:

rixalex,

There was horse-trading going on in the appointment of all three PMs, and horse-trading is always ugly - nature of the business. PPP's coalition was formed with the backing of parties that had campaigned on the promise that they would not work with PPP. Do you not consider this also perverting the declared will of the electorate? You should do, if consistency bothers you.

What was fishy about PPP members voting for Samak and Somchai. Without doubt there was real drama and horse trading during this -- but the purchase of elected PPP MPs away from their party?? To do so to cause the demise of a Government that had won after a year long litany of suppression against it??

If you believe that only the "red shirts" were incensed --- I think you are mistaken.

You didn't need to be a red shirt to regard these actions as beneath contempt. Odd isn't it -- some people felt cheated?

[tlansford]

Regardless of the Nitirat motives, the Democrats' strategy is apparently to talk about Thaksin as much as possible.

Well, about the anti-coup move, k. Thaksin paid-for lawyer Robert A. is also upping the ant. Check his latest fabric of English words put together in a 'logical order'

"They called it a "bloodless" coup at the time, as if an act of such violence could ever be without blood. Nobody was injured or killed on the night of 19 September 2006, when the army's tanks rolled into Bangkok, and rolled over a democracy that had been built piece by piece over decades of tragedies and triumphs. "Blood" is not just violence, but rather represented in this case by the tearing down of a popularly elected government and the shredding of the 1997 People's Constitution by a minority using thousands of soldiers and the weapons of war – one of the most violent, uncivil acts imaginable.

The equipment that the soldiers rode and carried into the capital city told a different story. For it is only thanks to a stunned population's lack of resistance that there was no blood on the pavement that night. As we saw some time later, the troops were ready to fire, should anybody dare to resist the act of unqualified brutality committed by their commanders."

http://robertamsterd...thailand/?p=943

haven't read this guy before - you say he's paid for by Thaksin, is that true?

[rubl]

Well, about the anti-coup move, k. Thaksin paid-for lawyer Robert A. is also upping the ant. Check his latest fabric of English words put together in a 'logical order'

http://robertamsterd...thailand/?p=943

haven't read this guy before - you say he's paid for by Thaksin, is that true?

Although I'm not going to question your honesty, I have doubts on you're being really naïve.

"Posted 2011-01-31 13:17:20

Robert Amsterdam Brings May 19 Crackdown on Reds to ICC

Robert Amsterdam, legal advisor to former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, has announced he will be bringing charges against the Thai military for cracking down on red shirt protesters to the International Criminal Court."

"June 29, 2011 Posted by Activist in Contributing Sites

"Stolen Elections"

Battle Cry of the Color Revolution

Rhetorical stage set by globalist Robert Amsterdam to destabilize Thailand.

Tony Cartalucci, Contributing Writer"

http://bbnworldnews.com/newspost/stolen-elections-battle-cry-of-the-color-revolution/

[whybother]

Certainly not out of the goodness of their hearts --- but a fully expected and normal arrangement.. A Government shall be formed by the majority winner -- and the smaller players never want to be left out in the wilderness.

I believe that the only democratically elected majority Thai government was that of the TRT in 2005. They also chose to form a coalition. Of course all other Governments were formed as you describe -- it is the norm --- not only in Thailand. I fail to see the point you make.

Of course the minor coalition partners negotiate the best position they can. It is a gigantic reach to suggest that this normal necessary practice in anyway relates to the purchase of the friends of Newin -- who were elected as PPP MPs -- not as anything else certainly not as pseudo - Democrats.

A government shall be formed by the group that can put together a majority of MPs.

The PPP didn't have "the right" to form government in 2007. They were able to convince some of the smaller parties to side with them (even though some of them had campaigned that they wouldn't do that).

In 2008, the Democrats (and others) were able to convince some of the smaller parties to support them. Yes, the military appeared to be involved in those discussions, but given the number of ministries that BJT got, how much coercion would there have been on the part of the military.

The 2008 government was formed in the same way as the 2007 government and the 2001 government. By offering spaces at the pig trough. The only difference in 2005 was that Thaksin had bought up all the smaller parties before the election instead of after it.

[tlansford]

Well, about the anti-coup move, k. Thaksin paid-for lawyer Robert A. is also upping the ant. Check his latest fabric of English words put together in a 'logical order'

http://robertamsterd...thailand/?p=943

haven't read this guy before - you say he's paid for by Thaksin, is that true?

Although I'm not going to question your honesty, I have doubts on you're being really naïve.

"Posted 2011-01-31 13:17:20

Robert Amsterdam Brings May 19 Crackdown on Reds to ICC

Robert Amsterdam, legal advisor to former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, has announced he will be bringing charges against the Thai military for cracking down on red shirt protesters to the International Criminal Court."

http://www.thaivisa....ost__p__4187106

"June 29, 2011 Posted by Activist in Contributing Sites

"Stolen Elections"

Battle Cry of the Color Revolution

Rhetorical stage set by globalist Robert Amsterdam to destabilize Thailand.

Tony Cartalucci, Contributing Writer"

http://bbnworldnews....lor-revolution/

Hi Rubl, OK, so this guy is the Canadian lawyer hired by Thaksin to advise the UDD. He writes a blog and has some contributions to it every few weeks to several times a week. At least it is transparent and you know the connection as you read - who is behind The Nation and their daily propaganda promenading as "news"? The fact that people here believe The Nation has more to do with psychology (seeking out information that supports our existing belief system) than critical reading, questioning, and evaluation of the content.

Anyway - what is the motivation of the nitirat group? I don't know - I leave the possibilities open in my consideration of their proposal. Coming back to the strategy of the Democrats, again, the results, the daily actions (as visible to a Farang spectator like myself) is an obstructionist strategy. Some here have called it "doing what the opposition should do and question/challenge the govt" - which to me is clearly incorrect.

And although it is not directly related to this thread, that which Amsterdam writes proposes a particular viewpoint, clearly with an agenda of its own, and laden with emotion-grabbing word-choices - strip all that away, and he still makes some interesting points, no? Maybe we can come back to that in another thread.

[rixalex]

What was fishy about PPP members voting for Samak and Somchai.

With Samak, the fishiness wasn't in PPP members voting for him, it was in PPP luring / buying / enticing (take your pick which terminology - all amounts to pretty much the same thing) other parties into their fold - parties who had promised those who voted for them, that they would not work with PPP.

With Somchai's appointment, it was pretty obvious to all but the naive that it was Thaksin behind the scenes who directed party members to not allow Samak to restand as PM (a fact that is often forgotten when red shirts bleat on about Samak's downfall being due to a cooking show), and it was Thaksin who pushed forward the unlikely candidate with the right family connections into the top spot. What was democratic about that process? Not a lot i would say. But this is politics. Who says it is supposed to be pretty.

Certainly wasn't pretty either with the way Abhisit came to power, and i did feel at the time that he should have called an election much sooner, to try and establish a better electoral mandate - in hindsight he might have done a lot better too. But he decided not to, and had some fairly reasonable justifications for that, as he felt that organising elections in that climate of unrest could be tricky - or perhaps he just thought with time in power he could win more voters over. Whatever the reason, it was his decision to make, on calling the election at the time of his choosing, not the red shirts or Thaksin choosing, and i defend his right to make that decision, just as i would now defend Yingluck's right to call the next election at a time of her choosing, not when the Dems or the PAD tell her she must.

You didn't need to be a red shirt to regard these actions as beneath contempt. Odd isn't it -- some people felt cheated?

Even odder that they only feel cheated when it is their party missing out on power, but when another party climbs to the top within exactly the same parliamentary mechanisms, suddenly it is unacceptable.

[rixalex]

haven't read this guy before - you say he's paid for by Thaksin, is that true?

Although I'm not going to question your honesty, I have doubts on you're being really naïve.

Hi Rubl, OK, so this guy is the Canadian lawyer hired by Thaksin to advise the UDD.

Just how new are you to all this stuff to have only just heard of Amsterdam and his connection with Thaksin?

Of course everyone's opinion has a right to be expressed, but you can't help wondering how well informed some people are when they come out with stuff like this, or like last week when a Thaksin supporter referred to Yingluck as Yingluck Thaksin, thinking Thaksin to be her surname. One could even be forgiven for thinking that such a person arrived in Thailand post Thaksin regime era and married into an Isaan family full of die-hard red supporters and is simply singing off the same hymn sheet as all their in-laws, but without really having much of a clue what any of it is all about, or any of the finer details - like people's surnames!

Hasten to add, i make no judgements on your specific background story tlansford.

[Babcock]

That's certainly one view. But those who have a slightly more intelligent take on the election may think that the manipulation that went on for two years, masterminded by the exile and his international cronies, which played on the fears and prejudices of the mass (some may say 'kwais') resulted in this farce of an election in which PTP won 35% of the nation's support. Now let me see. Yes, one example of how the reds tried to deny a legitimate voice to the Dems: Thousands of Abhisit posters were defaced around the country, but very few PTP posters were touched. Dem canvassers were not allowed to canvass in villages controlled by the reds. PTP fully understood their new slogan "Thaksin orders, PTP bribes". They had no policies only bribes. The Democracy training schools in Isaan and the North were designed not to teach democratic principles but to teach hate and fear. And so on it goes. Unacceptable behaviour manipulated by the one person who thinks he owns the country, its wealth, its people and its judicial systems. Under such circumstances PTP were bound to win. As for talking 'sh..' as the OP claims, I think if we just but blind prejudice aside we'd find a raft of policies within the Dems and also many achievements whilst in power. These were in the face of terrible opposition, such as the riots which made a response to the Red (Thaksin) agenda a priority thus stopping or delaying many policies that would have been to the benefit of the people. Unlike PTP who's every policy only benefits Thaksin & his cronies. Open your eyes, OP, and see what is really happening.

It is so edifying to have a self declared "more intelligent take".

The problem is this "take" ignores what the "kwais" have declared in election after election after election ----- They do not want the Democrats!!

whybother

Democrats - 2007 election - 165 seats. 2011 election - 159 seats. Not much change really.

Actually this recent election is the second best ever result achieved by the Democrats this century. Go the Dems!!

As for your comments re defaced Abhisit posters -- If you cannot understand the immense indignation felt by many for a PM and party who achieved power -- not through the electoral process -- but by barrack room deals and the purchase of the grubbiest of MPs --- then I wish you well.

It is amazing the Democrat apologists simply ignore repeated election results.

The recent ABAC poll comparing Yingluck and Abhisit's popularity during their PM tenures makes interesting reading. Neither comes out top but Abhisit fails to break the 20% mark in any catagory or location and mostly hovers below 15% iirc while Yingluck bounces around in the 30s and breaks into the 40s on occasion. Abhisit's unpopularity is the story of that poll. It also begs the question of why would a party want such an unpopular person leading it

He's leading them AGAIN! The Dems don't care what the electorate thinks. Remember under Posterboy they boycotted the 2005 election and they're "democrats"?

This time the votes in many wards Bangkok were very close and the dems just scraped in

[Ricardo]

He's leading them AGAIN! The Dems don't care what the electorate thinks. Remember under Posterboy they boycotted the 2005 election and they're "democrats"?

This time the votes in many wards Bangkok were very close and the dems just scraped in

Just to correct a couple of factual errors here, former-PM Abhisit didn't become leader of the Democrat Party until after the 2005 election, and it was the April-2006 election which they & several other parties boycotted.

So No, I don't "Remember under Posterboy they boycotted the 2005 election", as suggested.

[tlansford]

haven't read this guy before - you say he's paid for by Thaksin, is that true?

Although I'm not going to question your honesty, I have doubts on you're being really naïve.

Hi Rubl, OK, so this guy is the Canadian lawyer hired by Thaksin to advise the UDD.

Just how new are you to all this stuff to have only just heard of Amsterdam and his connection with Thaksin?

Of course everyone's opinion has a right to be expressed, but you can't help wondering how well informed some people are when they come out with stuff like this, or like last week when a Thaksin supporter referred to Yingluck as Yingluck Thaksin, thinking Thaksin to be her surname. One could even be forgiven for thinking that such a person arrived in Thailand post Thaksin regime era and married into an Isaan family full of die-hard red supporters and is simply singing off the same hymn sheet as all their in-laws, but without really having much of a clue what any of it is all about, or any of the finer details - like people's surnames!

Hasten to add, i make no judgements on your specific background story tlansford.

Sorry to disappoint

Re Amsterdam : I have seen the name posted here in the context of "Amsterdam convert", but for me, Amsterdam is still a destination at the other end of the Thalys (TGV)...

Re Thaksin, his lawyer/professional blogger, & being informed : I've said before that I am not terribly concerned about Thaksin and whether he comes back to Thailand or not. I'm pretty certain that someone can be well informed about Thailand and current events without knowing the name of Thaksin's lawyer/professional blogger for the last year. I do have an interest in Thailand and the well-being of its people with some specific people in mind. As for being informed about Thailand, I do my best to educated myself on its history, current events, culture, religion and language. The hardest part is definitely the language !

Now, back to the thread and Thailand, I believe that I pointed out that the Dems (IMO) have what you could call an obstructionist strategy. What is interesting to me is that it is a strategy based 100% on negative attacks. So far, I have not seen them offer a real counter proposal (as reported in the English language news, which could be lacking). This is bizarre to me as in the USA (where I am from) and in France (where my residence is), the opposition will criticize the he?l out of the government, and then they propose their own agenda. It is the 2nd half of this strategy that seems to be lacking here with the Dem's.

Again, this could be due to the Eng-Lang news. You read the editorials from The Nation, too. Whether you agree with the OP or not, the typical MOD is to attack, but not counter-propose their own ideas. For me, that is only half of the equation.

And also, the changes to the constitution in 2007, as I am aware of them, do not seem to me to have been for the better. Assuming that Thais feel the same, the legal group's efforts to identify possible changes to the constitution seem reasonable.

Cheers - Tom

[rixalex]

Re Thaksin, his lawyer/professional blogger, & being informed : I've said before that I am not terribly concerned about Thaksin and whether he comes back to Thailand or not.

Had i not been living in Thailand during his regime, from 2001 to 2006, i would probably feel that way too. I would probably be wondering what all the fuss was about. I would probably be wondering how he could be worse than any of the other corrupt politicians. I think it was something you had to experience first hand. Of course, had you, you might have come to a completely different conclusion about it all. I don't think so though. You seem too intelligent.

[tig28]

A government shall be formed by the group that can put together a majority of MPs.

The PPP didn't have "the right" to form government in 2007. They were able to convince some of the smaller parties to side with them (even though some of them had campaigned that they wouldn't do that).

In 2008, the Democrats (and others) were able to convince some of the smaller parties to support them. Yes, the military appeared to be involved in those discussions, but given the number of ministries that BJT got, how much coercion would there have been on the part of the military.

The 2008 government was formed in the same way as the 2007 government and the 2001 government. By offering spaces at the pig trough. The only difference in 2005 was that Thaksin had bought up all the smaller parties before the election instead of after it.

"The PPP didn't have "the right" to form government in 2007"

whybother -- it has nil to do with "right" - and all to do with ability.

Had the Democrats had the ability to form a Government they would have done so.

Why did they not do so? -- for one simple and glaring reason -- they had been resoundingly defeated at the ballot box.

In 2001 TRT - 248 . Dems -128

in 2007 PPP 233. Dems - 165.

The majority election winner in each case went on to form Government --- as has happened in all (but two) Thai democratic elections.

"The 2008 government was formed in the same way as the 2007 government and the 2001 government"

Well..... only if you overlook the fact that 2001/7 Governments were decided by elections ---- and the 2008 result was decided by retrospectively bribing some who had been elected to represent the PPP to betray their electors and grab the money. . If you wish to pretend that this is the same as forming a coalition -- then I can but wish you well.

I think that nothing better illustrates the electorates opinion of that unprecedented act of Parliamentary betrayal than the recent election results. I can remember that shortly after this time .... several news pieces were discussing just how far Newin could rise.(PM perhaps??) As the man who brought down an elected Government and then made another -- he seemed like a star on the rise.

"By offering spaces at the pig trough."

You shall get no debate from me on that!

[rixalex]

Well..... only if you overlook the fact that 2001/7 Governments were decided by elections ---- and the 2008 result was decided by retrospectively bribing some who had been elected to represent the PPP to betray their electors and grab the money. . If you wish to pretend that this is the same as forming a coalition -- then I can but wish you well.

For the 2001 and 2007 governments to have been decided entirely by elections, the respective governments would have had to of won a majority of house seats. They did not. Because they did not, they were decided by whether or not other smaller parties would work with them. And if you think there was no carrot dangling going on, or bribing, in getting those smaller parties who had said they would not work with PPP in 2007, to renege on that promise, you must be very naive.