Top Democrats Admit Revamp Needed If Party To Win At Polls

[Rancid]

Thing with these old corrupt parties (here or back home) is that nothing ever really changes, what they are actually seeking is the perception of change. They like things just as they are serving whatever interest group finances them and getting their snouts in the trough, the fact they are on the nose with the public isn't their fault, it is the public's fault, hence some good spin a BS is required.

Taksin's proxies were on the nose but the Dems still couldn't raise any popularity. Obviously the stink from PT will eventually again become intolerable and that would be the Dems chance. As they will have changed nothing they just hope everyone forgets how useless they were last time. And so it goes on...

[metisdead]

Removed posts containing a nonsense photo not really contributing to the topic.

[rubl]

The difference between the Shinawatra clan and the Democrats is as follows:

The Shinawatra clan is an (extended) family with a criminal fugitive as patriarch and with a political party setup/bought which is ordered around like a family company and controlled by the family.

The Democrats are a political party.

differences in relevance to the topic. Abhist is the leader of the Democrat party. not Thaksin.

and the topic is about how the democrat party could win elections.

Now listen carefully, you troll. You asked "do you know the democrats and Shinawatra family are two different clans?"

I corrected your misunderstanding. I have the feeling it's not even the first time I do this, but as ZZ you have no past.

[bigbamboo]

The Dems best chance of winning a national election is to sit tight and wait for Thaksin's party to be caught cheating.... again.

[muttley]

The difference between the Shinawatra clan and the Democrats is as follows:

The Shinawatra clan is an (extended) family with a criminal fugitive as patriarch and with a political party setup/bought which is ordered around like a family company and controlled by the family.

The Democrats are a political party.

differences in relevance to the topic. Abhist is the leader of the Democrat party. not Thaksin.

and the topic is about how the democrat party could win elections.

Now listen carefully, you troll. You asked "do you know the democrats and Shinawatra family are two different clans?"

I corrected your misunderstanding. I have the feeling it's not even the first time I do this, but as ZZ you have no past.

Unfair and a bit rude if I may say so. The original post to which you say you were replying to was actually pointing out that this thread is about the Democrat Party and not Thaksin, a point you seemed to have missed in your reply mentioning Thaksins criminal record. Zhou Zhou was pointing out the difference in an affort to get the thread back on topic, a subject dear to your heart.............usually

Edited March 24, 2013 by muttley

[A_Traveller]

Before pointing out someone's rudeness it might be wise to review the rather bizarre track record of the "new" high velocity poster.

There's something odd there in my view.

Edited March 24, 2013 by A_Traveller

[rubl]

The difference between the Shinawatra clan and the Democrats is as follows:

The Shinawatra clan is an (extended) family with a criminal fugitive as patriarch and with a political party setup/bought which is ordered around like a family company and controlled by the family.

The Democrats are a political party.

differences in relevance to the topic. Abhist is the leader of the Democrat party. not Thaksin.

and the topic is about how the democrat party could win elections.

Now listen carefully, you troll. You asked "do you know the democrats and Shinawatra family are two different clans?"

I corrected your misunderstanding. I have the feeling it's not even the first time I do this, but as ZZ you have no past.

Unfair and a bit rude if I may say so. The original post to which you say you were replying to was actually pointing out that this thread is about the Democrat Party and not Thaksin, a point you seemed to have missed in your reply mentioning Thaksins criminal record. Zhou Zhou was pointing out the difference in an affort to get the thread back on topic, a subject dear to your heart.............usually

Because I like cuddly animals I'll do this once more, just for you, my dear mutt.

Some people knowing that Thaksin = Shinawatra clan = Pheu Thai seem to assume that with the Democrats party it's the same. Obviously it should be just the other way round. With the Democrats party a democratic political party one would assume the Pheu Thai is the same.

I'm not moving away from the topic I'm just correcting a clear misunderstanding without even trying in the slightest to move away.

PS I've run out of bones, next time I promise

Edited March 24, 2013 by rubl

[FDog]

Does it surpise that a topic on the Dems is turning in to a Thaksin topic?

The Thais voted for the reds knowing what they were like, or how bad they are. By doing so they thought the Dems were worse. so how bad are the Dems that they can't even win when the other side are so bad and full of incompetents.

A very bad report card for the current Dems.

About time for introspection and a change in their charter may be a good thing for Thailand.

[rubl]

It's only to be hoped that in the revamp the Democrats party doesn't loose too much of it's 'democratic' part. Mind you 'better to loose in honor than to win by cheating' has never really appealed to me, somehow

[ZhouZhou]

Abhisit is the third generation of Vejjajivas involved in government politics.

There is nothing seen unusual in Thailand that family clans run parties, are involved in politics. That is normal. That is Thailand.

That isn't only the case for trt -ptp shinawatra, you will find the same thing in all these other colourful thai parties as well.

[473geo]

Well I suppose the last tenure of the democrats could hardly be described as an endorsement by the electorate Rubl......kind of a "democratic" installation by the coup leaders would perhaps be a more accurate description.....and as for cheating I suppose that would depend on your view of the rather over the top banning 100+ members of opposition parties because they attempted to make a competitive election as the Democrats refused to contest seats in an election they could not win....thus the democrats threw democracy down the pan when it suited their cause. Of course there is no doubting the fact that to financially encourage the "democratic" process was against the law.

[Locationthailand]

h90, on 24 Mar 2013 - 12:26, said:

DocN, on 24 Mar 2013 - 10:50, said:

Abisisth has done NOTHING positive for the party, but I guess it is not even his fault.

I remember his first interview with CNN after he was named PM. He said, that Thailand would have to look into a certain law and think about it. I guess, right after he said that, he was summoned by some "higher powers" and told, that THIS is NOT what has to be done.

I believe, he might be a descent politician in any European country, but English education and a European idea of democracy and politics does count for zero in Thailand.

...and they have to stop, making "chasing Thaksin" their main obligation and develop their "own character" and give a "face" to their policies, that is not centered on their oponents.

I don't know who these higher powers should be...but as good politician he would have done the necessary things, like the tax on land, no matter what some super rich tells him. If he fails to get a majority in parliament that this is party of democracy but he would have been remembered as trying.

And despite Doc's bleatings, Abhisit did a lot for the Isaarn people, came up with solutions, irrigation proposals and was doing all he could to reconcile the riots without violence. He agreed to dissolve parliament, he agreed to stand down, gave dates, and then the reds flip flopped on him. Eventually Abhisit had no choice and settled it with the army under state of emergency when anger from within his own party and Bangkok residents simply pushed him to the point. Abhisit is the best chance Thailand has irrespective of the party he presently heads. Yes he is educated and understands the word democracy - something Doc obviously wishes to differentiate as being a different meaning under Thai (his) sensibilities, but Abhisit had no backing and many in his party were and still are, as bad as the PTP clowns presently in Govt and linked to corrupt practices. I am not sure what the answers are but he can't clean up the mismanagement of Thailand by being in opposition.

There certainly needs to be a revamp for the Dems to get anywhere near elected, but perhaps that will not be in the foreseeable future unless the deposed criminal in Dubai meets his maker.

Edited March 24, 2013 by Locationthailand

[A_Traveller]

473 -> Just about complete nonsense.

1} The tenure was by the constitution, [and would have been the same under the blessed "Peoples Charter - 97], that is beyond doubt.

2} The ban was not for making a competitive election but intentionally breaching [indeed flouting] the law on the management of a general election.

3} The position of not contesting was the view that the election was being called under a false "unconstitutional" pretext [which it was] and acting in a manner that they [and others] saw fit and proper again constitutionally.

4} So no, treating the democracy issue as part of the constitutional structure [along with the organic laws e.g. representation of the peoples act, and the the political parties act] there was no determination of democracy by the eponymous party for convenience.

Edited March 24, 2013 by A_Traveller

[kimamey]

The difference between the Shinawatra clan and the Democrats is as follows:

The Shinawatra clan is an (extended) family with a criminal fugitive as patriarch and with a political party setup/bought which is ordered around like a family company and controlled by the family.

The Democrats are a political party.

differences in relevance to the topic. Abhist is the leader of the Democrat party. not Thaksin.

and the topic is about how the democrat party could win elections.

Now listen carefully, you troll. You asked "do you know the democrats and Shinawatra family are two different clans?"

I corrected your misunderstanding. I have the feeling it's not even the first time I do this, but as ZZ you have no past.

Unfair and a bit rude if I may say so. The original post to which you say you were replying to was actually pointing out that this thread is about the Democrat Party and not Thaksin, a point you seemed to have missed in your reply mentioning Thaksins criminal record. Zhou Zhou was pointing out the difference in an affort to get the thread back on topic, a subject dear to your heart.............usually

So if the topic were about Thaksin and PTP you wouldn't bring up Abhisit and the Democrats? I'll remember that.

As for the Dems making changes, well that would be a good idea but it'll be interesting to see if anything happens. I suppose it depends how many members are unsuitable due to things like corruption. If there are too many it may be difficult.

[473geo]

473 -> Just about complete nonsense.

1} The tenure was by the constitution, [and would have been the same under the blessed "Peoples Charter - 97], that is beyond doubt.

2} The ban was not for making a competitive election but intentionally breaching [indeed flouting] the law on the management of a general election. You are also conflating time lines to make a false point.

3} The position of not contesting was the view that the election was being called under a false "unconstitutional" pretext [which it was] and acting in a manner that they [and others] saw fit and proper again constitutionally.

4} So no, treating the democracy issue as part of the constitutional structure [along with the organic laws e.g. representation of the peoples act, and the the political parties act] there was no determination of democracy by the eponymous party for convenience.

"The position of not contesting was the view".....that Thaksin would gain power again......no more no less....your point by point attempt to relay a differing message does not work.....this action by the democrats convieniently facilitated a coup.....did it not?

[GazR]

Abisisth has done NOTHING positive for the party, but I guess it is not even his fault.

I remember his first interview with CNN after he was named PM. He said, that Thailand would have to look into a certain law and think about it. I guess, right after he said that, he was summoned by some "higher powers" and told, that THIS is NOT what has to be done.

I believe, he might be a descent politician in any European country, but English education and a European idea of democracy and politics does count for zero in Thailand.

...and they have to stop, making "chasing Thaksin" their main obligation and develop their "own character" and give a "face" to their policies, that is not centered on their oponents.

I don't know who these higher powers should be...but as good politician he would have done the necessary things, like the tax on land, no matter what some super rich tells him. If he fails to get a majority in parliament that this is party of democracy but he would have been remembered as trying.

Sadly people forget how many other parties he had to placate to stay in power.

Unlike the present Government who has to kowtow to no other parties they have the votes with in their own party do do as they wish.

Even with that kind of power it would seem their is a movement to replace the PM with another one more closely associated with a known convicted criminal.

Inconvenient facts worth repeating.

Edited March 24, 2013 by GazR

[ZhouZhou]

3} The position of not contesting was the view that the election was being called under a false "unconstitutional" pretext [which it was] and acting in a manner that they [and others] saw fit and proper again constitutionally.

I remember Abhisit saying he is ready and fit to become the new PM. but then someone must told him "impossibru - must win election first" So he changed his mind. He does that quite often, changing his mind.

Having a party leader that change his mind so often as Abhisit does, cost the democrats maybe the last few votes that would be necessary to win the election.

[A_Traveller]

473 -> Just about complete nonsense.

1} The tenure was by the constitution, [and would have been the same under the blessed "Peoples Charter - 97], that is beyond doubt.

2} The ban was not for making a competitive election but intentionally breaching [indeed flouting] the law on the management of a general election. You are also conflating time lines to make a false point.

3} The position of not contesting was the view that the election was being called under a false "unconstitutional" pretext [which it was] and acting in a manner that they [and others] saw fit and proper again constitutionally.

4} So no, treating the democracy issue as part of the constitutional structure [along with the organic laws e.g. representation of the peoples act, and the the political parties act] there was no determination of democracy by the eponymous party for convenience.

"The position of not contesting was the view".....that Thaksin would gain power again......no more no less....your point by point attempt to relay a differing message does not work.....this action by the democrats convieniently facilitated a coup.....did it not?

Unfortunately for your argument, I was here at the time of these events. I also had the opportunity to discuss the constitutionality of these and other events contemporaneously* as well as being aware of the public discussion within the kingdom. I suspect that you were not.

* To be blunt with individuals who were most certainly in a position to be "familiar with the situation" in the political camps at that time.

By the by could you fix your sticky full stop [period] key? Five or six points does not an ellipsis make.

[473geo]

473 -> Just about complete nonsense.

1} The tenure was by the constitution, [and would have been the same under the blessed "Peoples Charter - 97], that is beyond doubt.

2} The ban was not for making a competitive election but intentionally breaching [indeed flouting] the law on the management of a general election. You are also conflating time lines to make a false point.

3} The position of not contesting was the view that the election was being called under a false "unconstitutional" pretext [which it was] and acting in a manner that they [and others] saw fit and proper again constitutionally.

4} So no, treating the democracy issue as part of the constitutional structure [along with the organic laws e.g. representation of the peoples act, and the the political parties act] there was no determination of democracy by the eponymous party for convenience.

"The position of not contesting was the view".....that Thaksin would gain power again......no more no less....your point by point attempt to relay a differing message does not work.....this action by the democrats convieniently facilitated a coup.....did it not?

Unfortunately for your argument, I was here at the time of these events. I also had the opportunity to discuss the constitutionality of these and other events contemporaneously* as well as being aware of the public discussion within the kingdom. I suspect that you were not.

* To be blunt with individuals who were most certainly in a position to be "familiar with the situation" in the political camps at that time.

By the by could you fix your sticky full stop [period] key? Five or six points does not an ellipsis make.

Thank you Mr traveller for yet another snyde remark one in every response to me so far. In order not to encourage this rather futile pattern, I have no wish to debate any further topics with you so please save your little insults for some other poster.......for your information there are those who were around at the time who are now indicating that the coup was indeed a step backwards, and an election to remove Thaksin would have been more productive in the long term......as I say bad choice by the Democrats......becoming a habit don't you think?.......Goodbye Mr traveller

[waza]

Well if the Democrats don't make drastic changes it will make no difference who they run. the electorate is very well bought conditioned to vote PT in.

I can just imagine the talk around the supper table at the next Shinawarta family reunion.

Thaksin speaking. Who wants to be the next.

Prime Minister of Thailand. Lots of perks.

No

not you son first a turn as Minister of Finance where it is an accepted

practice to lie that will cover up your lack of knowledge or perhaps

Minister of Education you don't have to know any thing there. Then you

will be eligible for the head of the line at the trough.

do you know the democrats and Shinawatra family are two different clans?

it is very easy to distinguish between them. Shinawatra & co winning elections. democrats losing election.

this topic is about the democrats. their leader is Abhisit. not Thaksin.

You might have to revise that description, the PTP have lost the last 5 by elections.

so you think there is no revamp needed for the democrats party to win at polls?

What a silly question the entire theme of this topic is that they clearly do. Try to keep up Zhou Zhou

[ZhouZhou]

You might have to revise that description, the PTP have lost the last 5 by elections.

so you think there is no revamp needed for the democrats party to win at polls?

What a silly question the entire theme of this topic is that they clearly do. Try to keep up Zhou Zhou

ahh, okay. do you think that the ptp lost the last 5 by-election has something to do with that revamp approach? first fruits or so? making voters change their minds.

[waza]

You might have to revise that description, the PTP have lost the last 5 by elections.

so you think there is no revamp needed for the democrats party to win at polls?

What a silly question the entire theme of this topic is that they clearly do. Try to keep up Zhou Zhou

ahh, okay. do you think that the ptp lost the last 5 by-election has something to do with that revamp approach? first fruits or so? making voters change their minds.

I am having trouble dis-cyphering your question. Whats first fruits or so? I dont think the fact that PTP has lost the last 5 by elections has caused the Democrats introspection, I think its the fact that they havent won the last 6 elections

[ZhouZhou]

"first fruits" maybe an idiom/saying that doesn't exist in English language.

like if you take good care of an young apple tree, starting from the seeds. if you do it right one day you will harvest the first fruits of it. but that is just the beginning. later you will get more and more.

like starting with a small thing, first it will pay of a little and later become more.

so with these last recent by-election, lost by ptp, i assumed they were maybe won by the democrats. that maybe indicates a new development in the changes for the democrats to win one day the big elections. and if the ptp lose was a democrats win it maybe the result that the democrats already doing now something different then before.

[waza]

"first fruits" maybe an idiom/saying that doesn't exist in English language.

like if you take good care of an young apple tree, starting from the seeds. if you do it right one day you will harvest the first fruits of it. but that is just the beginning. later you will get more and more.

like starting with a small thing, first it will pay of a little and later become more.

so with these last recent by-election, lost by ptp, i assumed they were maybe won by the democrats. that maybe indicates a new development in the changes for the democrats to win one day the big elections. and if the ptp lose was a democrats win it maybe the result that the democrats already doing now something different then before.

Ok sort of like, "you reap what you sow", but in Thaksins case I prefer, "They that sow the wind, shall reap the whirlwind". No the Dems didn't win all of the last 6 elections, that's why I said it was an impetus for introspection.

[DocN]

h90, on 24 Mar 2013 - 12:26, said:

DocN, on 24 Mar 2013 - 10:50, said:

Abisisth has done NOTHING positive for the party, but I guess it is not even his fault.

I remember his first interview with CNN after he was named PM. He said, that Thailand would have to look into a certain law and think about it. I guess, right after he said that, he was summoned by some "higher powers" and told, that THIS is NOT what has to be done.

I believe, he might be a descent politician in any European country, but English education and a European idea of democracy and politics does count for zero in Thailand.

...and they have to stop, making "chasing Thaksin" their main obligation and develop their "own character" and give a "face" to their policies, that is not centered on their oponents.

I don't know who these higher powers should be...but as good politician he would have done the necessary things, like the tax on land, no matter what some super rich tells him. If he fails to get a majority in parliament that this is party of democracy but he would have been remembered as trying.

And despite Doc's bleatings, Abhisit did a lot for the Isaarn people, came up with solutions, irrigation proposals and was doing all he could to reconcile the riots without violence. He agreed to dissolve parliament, he agreed to stand down, gave dates, and then the reds flip flopped on him. Eventually Abhisit had no choice and settled it with the army under state of emergency when anger from within his own party and Bangkok residents simply pushed him to the point. Abhisit is the best chance Thailand has irrespective of the party he presently heads. Yes he is educated and understands the word democracy - something Doc obviously wishes to differentiate as being a different meaning under Thai (his) sensibilities, but Abhisit had no backing and many in his party were and still are, as bad as the PTP clowns presently in Govt and linked to corrupt practices. I am not sure what the answers are but he can't clean up the mismanagement of Thailand by being in opposition.

There certainly needs to be a revamp for the Dems to get anywhere near elected, but perhaps that will not be in the foreseeable future unless the deposed criminal in Dubai meets his maker.

The Doc has said nothing about Isan and the reds and flip- flopping.

Something that Location graciously overlooks, in the boring attempt, to pin the whole countries (and the the democrats Parties) problems on Thaksin.

Now back to the subject of revamping the Democrat Party!