The opposition uses a lawful method called 'no confidence debate' to gain some more attention to aspects the current government with it's majority tends/tries/succeeds to ignore. Just like the opposition to the previous government did, and the one before, and the one before, etc., etc.

Apart from the legal aspects these debates also tend to be fun, some speakers can be really sarcastic, funny, to the point. Some like to come with dozens of colourful spreadsheets, some as so dull as to put everyone to sleep.

Now if you really need to know more on what parliament is for ask the House Speaker who's a bit deaf so he might not hear you. Wiki also has items on democracies and normally more pointers to other websites than any casual reader would really like. So hop along, do some homework

just because you put a at the end of your post, doesn't hide your attempt at baiting and trolling for a heated response.

sorry, it's not happening kiddo.

The Thai political system seems to be overloaded with "time wasters", Trips to meet a fugutive, trips to see how a foreign police force works, trips to spend money that was not spent on needs of the people, interviews to give their opinion on legal topics (which are tobe handled by the legal system), trips to bail out their cronies from jail, and the list goes on and seems endless.

They do seem quite effecient at creating confusion, unaware of what is happening, issueing decrees/orders with no direction/substance, photo shoots, raising monies (beg, borrow, steal) and disbursing it, and keeping track of regular deposits to their assits.

A weekly pms questions would be so much better, more entertaining, make sure the pm attended more often and allow for weekly scrutiny.

This is all very entertaining, but won't change anything. A no confidence vote never passes, but it does hold the government open to criticism. Doing it weekly would keep the story running so much better.

The opposition uses a lawful method called 'no confidence debate' to gain some more attention to aspects the current government with it's majority tends/tries/succeeds to ignore. Just like the opposition to the previous government did, and the one before, and the one before, etc., etc.

Apart from the legal aspects these debates also tend to be fun, some speakers can be really sarcastic, funny, to the point. Some like to come with dozens of colourful spreadsheets, some as so dull as to put everyone to sleep.

Now if you really need to know more on what parliament is for ask the House Speaker who's a bit deaf so he might not hear you. Wiki also has items on democracies and normally more pointers to other websites than any casual reader would really like. So hop along, do some homework

just because you put a at the end of your post, doesn't hide your attempt at baiting and trolling for a heated response.

sorry, it's not happening kiddo.

I'm terribly sorry, old chap. With you calling the no-confidence debate request from the opposition 'pointless and time wasting' and following wondering 'and what's parliament for then?' I got the distinct impression you were trolling around

they can air their grievances and they can ask for more justification regarding their policies and how they are implemented.

They can't talk about something that's not on the agenda.

so tell me what you've read in that article that hasn't been talked about before in parliament.

obviously besides the no confidence motion of yingluck which they've pretty much admitted is a pointless effort.

Graft allegations in the rice scheme.

can anyone tell me what they've read in that article that hasn't been talked about before in parliament?

genuinely interested.

as i said, obviously besides the no confidence red herring.

Didn't AV promise to resign as Dem leader if Dems got less seats in the election? He is the best thing that ever happened to PT

he did but he went back on his word within about a month.

Interesting twist of the truth ....again! No surprise here

they can air their grievances and they can ask for more justification regarding their policies and how they are implemented.

They can't talk about something that's not on the agenda.

so tell me what you've read in that article that hasn't been talked about before in parliament.

obviously besides the no confidence motion of yingluck which they've pretty much admitted is a pointless effort.

Graft allegations in the rice scheme.

so no democrat has mentioned this in parliament as of yet?

ok.

can anyone tell me what they've read in that article that hasn't been talked about before in parliament?

genuinely interested.

as i said, obviously besides the no confidence red herring.

It's part of the parliamentary process. It allows the opposition to ask a range of questions and bring up issues about the governments performance.

If you're going to complain about it being a waste of time, then you'd also be complaining that all of parliament is a waste of time.

Graft allegations in the rice scheme.

so no democrat has mentioned this in parliament as of yet?

ok.

They haven't been able to ask questions about it in parliament, because the rice scheme hasn't been on the agenda since it was started in the first place.

It certainly hasn't been on the agenda since the cabinet approved a new tranche of subsidies.

Graft allegations in the rice scheme.

so no democrat has mentioned this in parliament as of yet?

ok.

They haven't been able to ask questions about it in parliament, because the rice scheme hasn't been on the agenda since it was started in the first place.

It certainly hasn't been on the agenda since the cabinet approved a new tranche of subsidies.

This is another part of the process i don't understand. We read 'cabinet approves' and there appears to be no parliamentary debate about the issue.

Didn't AV promise to resign as Dem leader if Dems got less seats in the election? He is the best thing that ever happened to PT

he did but he went back on his word within about a month.

Interesting twist of the truth ....again! No surprise here

look, he resigned as the dem leader (everyone took this to mean for good)... i took him at his word.

he reclaimed the leadership around a month later.... guess we shouldn't have took him at his word.

unless you're suggesting his intention was to resign for a month, otherwise i see it as going back on his word... but of course ye don't why would ye, it is abhisit afterall

look, he resigned as the dem leader (everyone took this to mean for good)... i took him at his word.

he reclaimed the leadership around a month later.... guess we shouldn't have took him at his word.

unless you're suggesting his intention was to resign for a month, otherwise i see it as going back on his word... but of course ye don't why would ye, it is abhisit afterall

YOU took it as meaning for good. Now you're pissed off because he didn't do what you misunderstood him to mean.

His intention was to resign and allow the membership to choose who should be leader. The membership decided that they still wanted him.

look, he resigned as the dem leader (everyone took this to mean for good)... i took him at his word.

he reclaimed the leadership around a month later.... guess we shouldn't have took him at his word.

unless you're suggesting his intention was to resign for a month, otherwise i see it as going back on his word... but of course ye don't why would ye, it is abhisit afterall

YOU took it as meaning for good. Now you're pissed off because he didn't do what you misunderstood him to mean.

pissed off!! haha, not likely

"misunderstood him to mean"... did you really forget already the part where he "insisted that when he announced his resignation he had no plans to return to the party leadership"

HE took it as meaning for good too.

lol.

Didn't AV promise to resign as Dem leader if Dems got less seats in the election? He is the best thing that ever happened to PT

he did but he went back on his word within about a month.

Interesting twist of the truth ....again! No surprise here

look, he resigned as the dem leader (everyone took this to mean for good)... i took him at his word.

he reclaimed the leadership around a month later.... guess we shouldn't have took him at his word.

unless you're suggesting his intention was to resign for a month, otherwise i see it as going back on his word... but of course ye don't why would ye, it is abhisit afterall

Interesting twist of the truth....again

can anyone tell me what they've read in that article that hasn't been talked about before in parliament?

genuinely interested.

as i said, obviously besides the no confidence red herring.

It's part of the parliamentary process. It allows the opposition to ask a range of questions and bring up issues about the governments performance.

If you're going to complain about it being a waste of time, then you'd also be complaining that all of parliament is a waste of time.

i think trying to get a no-confidence vote is a waste of time.

look, he resigned as the dem leader (everyone took this to mean for good)... i took him at his word.

he reclaimed the leadership around a month later.... guess we shouldn't have took him at his word.

unless you're suggesting his intention was to resign for a month, otherwise i see it as going back on his word... but of course ye don't why would ye, it is abhisit afterall

YOU took it as meaning for good. Now you're pissed off because he didn't do what you misunderstood him to mean.

pissed off!! haha, not likely

"misunderstood him to mean"... did you really forget already the part where he "insisted that when he announced his resignation he had no plans to return to the party leadership"

HE took it as meaning for good too.

lol.

"he had no plans to return" but the membership convinced him that he should. He was elected leader. Obviously the party membership had no issue with him changing his plans.

look, he resigned as the dem leader (everyone took this to mean for good)... i took him at his word.

he reclaimed the leadership around a month later.... guess we shouldn't have took him at his word.

unless you're suggesting his intention was to resign for a month, otherwise i see it as going back on his word... but of course ye don't why would ye, it is abhisit afterall

Interesting twist of the truth....again

well please enlighten us of the truth oh chosen one..

instead of just sticking your oar in without actually adding anything.

i think trying to get a no-confidence vote is a waste of time.

I think that pointing out issues with government policy and trying to get answers on how the government is dealing with some of them is not a waste of time.

look, he resigned as the dem leader (everyone took this to mean for good)... i took him at his word.

he reclaimed the leadership around a month later.... guess we shouldn't have took him at his word.

unless you're suggesting his intention was to resign for a month, otherwise i see it as going back on his word... but of course ye don't why would ye, it is abhisit afterall

Interesting twist of the truth....again

well please enlighten us of the truth oh chosen one..

instead of just sticking your oar in without actually adding anything.

Well, for starters, he didn't say that he wouldn't be leader again.

i think trying to get a no-confidence vote is a waste of time.

I think that pointing out issues with government policy and trying to get answers on how the government is dealing with some of them is not a waste of time.

so do i.

look, he resigned as the dem leader (everyone took this to mean for good)... i took him at his word.

he reclaimed the leadership around a month later.... guess we shouldn't have took him at his word.

unless you're suggesting his intention was to resign for a month, otherwise i see it as going back on his word... but of course ye don't why would ye, it is abhisit afterall

Interesting twist of the truth....again

well please enlighten us of the truth oh chosen one..

instead of just sticking your oar in without actually adding anything.

Well, for starters, he didn't say that he wouldn't be leader again.

yeah, he just resigned and later admitted that was his intention when he resigned.

honestly, the guy resigned as dem leader and within around a month he's back in the driving seat and ye don't see this as going back on your word....

is it just the phrase 'going back on your word' that's the problem?

how about completely flipped flopped on his life changing intentions within around a month?

The "But Abhisit" key is furiously abused whenever the PTP/Thaksin government is put to scrutiny.

Carry on derailing the thread.

honestly, the guy resigned as dem leader and within around a month he's back in the driving seat and ye don't see this as going back on your word....

is it just the phrase 'going back on your word' that's the problem?

how about completely flipped flopped on his life changing intentions within around a month?

He resigned to see if the membership wanted to elect someone else. They didn't.

He didn't say that he wouldn't be leader, so I don't see that he went back on his word.

He said he would resign. He did.

He said he didn't have plans to be leader again. Those plans changed when the people decided that they wanted him.

You've never changed plans?

The "But Abhisit" key is furiously abused whenever the PTP/Thaksin government is put to scrutiny.

Carry on derailing the thread.

not my intentions at all, i merely replied to someone and then replied to those that replied to me.

i couldn't give two donkeys <deleted> "whenever the PTP/Thaksin government is put to scrutiny."

i think trying to get a no-confidence vote is a waste of time.

I think that pointing out issues with government policy and trying to get answers on how the government is dealing with some of them is not a waste of time.

so do i.

Well, the way that they do this is through a no confidence motion.

honestly, the guy resigned as dem leader and within around a month he's back in the driving seat and ye don't see this as going back on your word....

is it just the phrase 'going back on your word' that's the problem?

how about completely flipped flopped on his life changing intentions within around a month?

He resigned to see if the membership wanted to elect someone else. They didn't.

He didn't say that he wouldn't be leader, so I don't see that he went back on his word.

He said he would resign. He did.

He said he didn't have plans to be leader again. Those plans changed when the people decided that they wanted him.

You've never changed plans?

no whybother, i've never changed plans.

let's just accept he completely flipped flopped on his life changing intentions within around a month and move on.

i think trying to get a no-confidence vote is a waste of time.

I think that pointing out issues with government policy and trying to get answers on how the government is dealing with some of them is not a waste of time.

so do i.

Well, the way that they do this is through a no confidence motion.

and in parliament and through the media but fair enough, if you are saying this is their only way of asking questions of the government then i concede that it's not a waste of time.

why did abhisit take so long to decide on it i wonder?

though i suppose he takes his time to think through really important decisions so that he's fully sure of it, like that one time when he resigned..

honestly, the guy resigned as dem leader and within around a month he's back in the driving seat and ye don't see this as going back on your word....

is it just the phrase 'going back on your word' that's the problem?

how about completely flipped flopped on his life changing intentions within around a month?

He resigned to see if the membership wanted to elect someone else. They didn't.

He didn't say that he wouldn't be leader, so I don't see that he went back on his word.

He said he would resign. He did.

He said he didn't have plans to be leader again. Those plans changed when the people decided that they wanted him.

You've never changed plans?

no whybother, i've never changed plans.

let's just accept he completely flipped flopped on his life changing intentions within around a month and move on.

He resigned to allow the membership to make a choice. They made a choice. He had no plans. He made plans.