Abhisit ready to be replaced if party members want that

[tbthailand]

With the sentiment expressed above, I hope that you will join me in disparaging the party list system. ALL MPs should be elected by an electorate, after facing their intense scrutiny and possibility of rejection (Oh NO! What a loss of face.)

The party list allows the wealthy to "buy" popular politicians and use their votes to appoint themselves, family, unelectable scum like Chalerm, and criminals facing prosecution to the highest offices of the land.

I could certainly live without the party list system though I'm not sure it is quite the devil's cauldron you suggest.

Incidentally your and my idea of unelectable scum may not be the same as that of at least some voters.Rascals get elected everywhere and I'm fairly sure Chalerm could get himself elected - and I don't mean by bribes or intimidation.

I see not much understanding the party list system. It serve a particular purpose as most party list candidates are potential ministers and the party list allows replacements without need for a bye election. For single seat MP, a bye election is necessary and it cost money and disruption to that particular constituency.

Party heavyweights will slot their winning chances in "safe" constituency which almost guarantee them electability. Same here and same everywhere in the world.

As usual, the lack of understanding is on your part. Ministers can be appointed without being MPs (in Thailand). Most MPs that take a portfolio resign their seat because like the former PM they can't be bothered attending the job they were elected to. Allowing some party hack seat warmer to take their position until it is needed.

Party bigwigs might have safe seats, but that doesn't stop an electorate from throwing them out on their ear. TWO Oz PMs have been shown the door this way.

How do you defend a system that allows the rich to buy power, incompetent family members to be given positions of authority, and criminals to delay justice?

your last sentence is a good point. The rich didn't buy the current 'government'. No one is putting members of their family into positions of power. And the 'NCPO' are not criminals.

[whybother]

well, I guess it just sounded like that to YOU

So the Thaksin parties have a long-standing, winning coalition. What should the Democrats do? Are they helpless in electoral politics?

They're not helpless. They're a party that, since TRT swallowed up a lot of the smaller NE parties, get a large proportion of the national vote. They must be doing something right.

[halloween]

As usual, the lack of understanding is on your part. Ministers can be appointed without being MPs (in Thailand). Most MPs that take a portfolio resign their seat because like the former PM they can't be bothered attending the job they were elected to. Allowing some party hack seat warmer to take their position until it is needed.

Party bigwigs might have safe seats, but that doesn't stop an electorate from throwing them out on their ear. TWO Oz PMs have been shown the door this way.

How do you defend a system that allows the rich to buy power, incompetent family members to be given positions of authority, and criminals to delay justice?

your last sentence is a good point. The rich didn't buy the current 'government'. No one is putting members of their family into positions of power. And the 'NCPO' are not criminals.

No they didn't. They threw out the corrupt and incompetent rich, their even more incompetent family members and the criminals who are now available to face terrorism charges, amongst others. And all because their criminal autocrat wanted his amnesty. Som nom naa.

[halloween]

well, I guess it just sounded like that to YOU

So the Thaksin parties have a long-standing, winning coalition. What should the Democrats do? Are they helpless in electoral politics?

They're not helpless. They're a party that, since TRT swallowed up a lot of the smaller NE parties, get a large proportion of the national vote. They must be doing something right.

A good example was the New Aspiration party, whose new aspiration turned out to be ThaKsin's money, who merged with TRT AFTER the 2001 election.

[tbthailand]

well, I guess it just sounded like that to YOU

So the Thaksin parties have a long-standing, winning coalition. What should the Democrats do? Are they helpless in electoral politics?

They're not helpless. They're a party that, since TRT swallowed up a lot of the smaller NE parties, get a large proportion of the national vote. They must be doing something right.

While they did change the system during the time that they were installed in power to increase seats allocated to the proportional votes in order to increase their chances of winning, they went on to a spectacular loss in 2011 - also in the proportional vote.

2007 changed the system to favor the Democrats

Their amendments in 2011 were made to favor themselves.

The current 'government' will very likely change the system to favor them even more.

But when I ask 'what should they do?', I'm not thinking of 'change the system until if favors us so much that we finally win'. I am thinking more along the lines of creating a platform that appeals to voters and creating an organization that can get out their voters. Politics 101.

The fact that the Democrats have failed to do anything like that under nearly 10 years of Abhisit's leadership is a sign how feeble he is as a politician.

I think he should have stepped down long ago and refused to be reappointed.

The Democrats, in my opinion, need a capable leader and need a viable platform and organization to be competitive. Then the elites who oppose Thaksin would not need to pull the military-lever in order to run the government.

[Eric Loh]

I don't have a huge objection to a partially or at a stretch to a fully appointed Senate.Devil is in the detail of course.However the absolutely key point is that such an assembly can only check or delay decisions/legislation of the lower fully elected (one person one vote) house.Ultimately the elected house must prevail.This is an absolute sine qua non.However the Senate is not to be taken lightly and the government of the day must woprk with both houses.

With the sentiment expressed above, I hope that you will join me in disparaging the party list system. ALL MPs should be elected by an electorate, after facing their intense scrutiny and possibility of rejection (Oh NO! What a loss of face.)

The party list allows the wealthy to "buy" popular politicians and use their votes to appoint themselves, family, unelectable scum like Chalerm, and criminals facing prosecution to the highest offices of the land.

I could certainly live without the party list system though I'm not sure it is quite the devil's cauldron you suggest.

Incidentally your and my idea of unelectable scum may not be the same as that of at least some voters.Rascals get elected everywhere and I'm fairly sure Chalerm could get himself elected - and I don't mean by bribes or intimidation.

I see not much understanding the party list system. It serve a particular purpose as most party list candidates are potential ministers and the party list allows replacements without need for a bye election. For single seat MP, a bye election is necessary and it cost money and disruption to that particular constituency.

Party heavyweights will slot their winning chances in "safe" constituency which almost guarantee them electability. Same here and same everywhere in the world.

So what. How many other countries have a party list system?

How many other countries can abuse the parliamentary system by having a person with NO political experience at all be elected as Prime Minister on her name only.

If anyone wants to be an MP, get out there and make yourself know to the people and stand for election within the community.

Abolish the party list MP quota completely and for ever.

Work out how many people in Thailand and how many MPs are needed and then elect the MPs on a pro rata of the per head of population. THAT is the fairest way to do it.

Some areas will have more MPs than now and some will have less and if an MP gets elected by their constituents on their family name there is no problem because they stood for election.

What Parlimentary system have been abused in selecting the PM. Care you explain?

The Dem will be the party that will be more upset with lesser or abolishment of the party list. They did increase its percentage when they were in power.

Nice try at obfuscation.

I assume that you agree with party list MPs where the political party owners pick and choose who they want with no reference to the voting public who actually have NO choice as to who may be foisted on them.

You could if you wish answer the question as to which other countries have party list MPs.

The easy 'other country party list' answer first and in ASEAN -Phillipines. Reasons why they have party list system are exactly the same as Thailand and share some of your concerns.

Incumbent MPs win year after year in their constituents because they have influence and resources, leaving no chance for others which do not have the same amount of resources but may be better qualified. Party

Iist allows candidates to participate with lesser resources and they can present their party policies to win votes. Party list system has its merits. It dismantle powerful MPs dominating their constituency year after year. Think about that instead of just based your thoughts on prejudice.

Oh, by the way party list electoral system was introduced in 1997 before Taksin government in 2001. He participated in the electoral system already in the constitution.

[tullynagardy]

I think he should go back to his home country and pursue a career in politics there.

His best mate Boris could sort him out and his views are similar in nature. The Conservatives are crying out for non white faces also.

[halloween]

The easy 'other country party list' answer first and in ASEAN -Phillipines. Reasons why they have party list system are exactly the same as Thailand and share some of your concerns.

Incumbent MPs win year after year in their constituents because they have influence and resources, leaving no chance for others which do not have the same amount of resources but may be better qualified. Party

Iist allows candidates to participate with lesser resources and they can present their party policies to win votes. Party list system has its merits. It dismantle powerful MPs dominating their constituency year after year. Think about that instead of just based your thoughts on prejudice.

Oh, by the way party list electoral system was introduced in 1997 before Taksin government in 2001. He participated in the electoral system already in the constitution.

What a load of old cobblers! Incumbent MPs win because their constituents are happy enough with their performance. If not, they are voted out, even if they are the incumbent PM. How much more influence or resources could a candidate have?

If the party list system works as you suggest, why is the PTP party list filled with shin clan, Thaksin cronies like Chalerm and criminals like Jatuporn and Nathuwut? Can't these people get elected in a safe seat? Where are the lesser lights lacking resources?

I don't care who introduced the party list system. It is easily abused, and nobody has abused it more than the Shinawatras. Just another facet of their manipulating the democratic system for their own ends. Think about that rather than gushing any excuse for PTP.

BTW PI - now there's a shining star in the democratic galaxy!

[Robespiere]

Abhisit is a dud, always has been.

All he ever was, was a presentable front man for the ruling elite, just an empty suit.

The Thai people aren't stupid - that's why Abhisit never won an election, they could see him for what he is - a dud.

Now, with democracy all but dead and buried, who needs a front man anymore.

Goodbye, so long, you've played your role in destroying freedom in this land, now on your way.

Thaksin lost many elections until he formed TRT by buying up the small NE parties.

Thaksin entered politics in 1994 and became Foreign Minister that same year, he founded TRT in 1998 and became Prime Minister in 2001.

"After a historic election victory in 2001, he became prime minister, the country's first to serve a full term.Thaksin introduced a range of policies to alleviate rural poverty; highly popular, they helped reduce poverty by half in four years.He launched the country's first universal healthcare program, the 30-baht scheme, as well as a highly notorious drug suppression campaign.Thaksin embarked on a massive program of infrastructure investment, including roads, public transit, and Suvarnabhumi Airport. Nevertheless, public sector debt fell from 57% of GDP in January 2001 to 41% in September 2006. Levels of corruption were perceived to have fallen, with Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index improving from 3.2 to 3.8 between 2001 and 2005.The Thai Rak Thai party won an unprecedented landslide in the 2005 general election, which had the highest voter turnout in Thai history".

Hard to see there ever being a time when Abhisit can match this career trajectory so it's rather silly of you to make the comparison.

[tbthailand]

The easy 'other country party list' answer first and in ASEAN -Phillipines. Reasons why they have party list system are exactly the same as Thailand and share some of your concerns.

Incumbent MPs win year after year in their constituents because they have influence and resources, leaving no chance for others which do not have the same amount of resources but may be better qualified. Party

Iist allows candidates to participate with lesser resources and they can present their party policies to win votes. Party list system has its merits. It dismantle powerful MPs dominating their constituency year after year. Think about that instead of just based your thoughts on prejudice.

Oh, by the way party list electoral system was introduced in 1997 before Taksin government in 2001. He participated in the electoral system already in the constitution.

What a load of old cobblers! Incumbent MPs win because their constituents are happy enough with their performance. If not, they are voted out, even if they are the incumbent PM. How much more influence or resources could a candidate have?

If the party list system works as you suggest, why is the PTP party list filled with shin clan, Thaksin cronies like Chalerm and criminals like Jatuporn and Nathuwut? Can't these people get elected in a safe seat? Where are the lesser lights lacking resources?

I don't care who introduced the party list system. It is easily abused, and nobody has abused it more than the Shinawatras. Just another facet of their manipulating the democratic system for their own ends. Think about that rather than gushing any excuse for PTP.

BTW PI - now there's a shining star in the democratic galaxy!

and nobody has abused it more than the Shinawatras. Just another facet of their manipulating the democratic system for their own ends. Think about that rather than gushing any excuse for PTP.

which is naturally why the Democrats reduced constituency and expanded proportional seats in Feb 2011 before the elections.

Of course the PTP abused the system. Sure, Right. I get it now.

[halloween]

What a load of old cobblers! Incumbent MPs win because their constituents are happy enough with their performance. If not, they are voted out, even if they are the incumbent PM. How much more influence or resources could a candidate have?

If the party list system works as you suggest, why is the PTP party list filled with shin clan, Thaksin cronies like Chalerm and criminals like Jatuporn and Nathuwut? Can't these people get elected in a safe seat? Where are the lesser lights lacking resources?

I don't care who introduced the party list system. It is easily abused, and nobody has abused it more than the Shinawatras. Just another facet of their manipulating the democratic system for their own ends. Think about that rather than gushing any excuse for PTP.

BTW PI - now there's a shining star in the democratic galaxy!

and nobody has abused it more than the Shinawatras. Just another facet of their manipulating the democratic system for their own ends. Think about that rather than gushing any excuse for PTP.

which is naturally why the Democrats reduced constituency and expanded proportional seats in Feb 2011 before the elections.

Of course the PTP abused the system. Sure, Right. I get it now.

Are you deliberately obtuse? i don't care who introduced it, or who modified it, I just don't see a place for it in a real democracy.

I left my post there so you can re-read it and if you wish actually discuss of the PTP abuse of the party list system, rather than throwing up a strawman argument, I am quite happy to. For example, in most democracies, MPs accused of serious crimes are asked to step down until the matter is resolved. PTP appointed such people in an attempt to pervert the course of justice. Do you find that acceptable?

[whybother]

well, I guess it just sounded like that to YOU

So the Thaksin parties have a long-standing, winning coalition. What should the Democrats do? Are they helpless in electoral politics?

They're not helpless. They're a party that, since TRT swallowed up a lot of the smaller NE parties, get a large proportion of the national vote. They must be doing something right.

While they did change the system during the time that they were installed in power to increase seats allocated to the proportional votes in order to increase their chances of winning, they went on to a spectacular loss in 2011 - also in the proportional vote.

2007 changed the system to favor the Democrats

Their amendments in 2011 were made to favor themselves.

The current 'government' will very likely change the system to favor them even more.

But when I ask 'what should they do?', I'm not thinking of 'change the system until if favors us so much that we finally win'. I am thinking more along the lines of creating a platform that appeals to voters and creating an organization that can get out their voters. Politics 101.

The fact that the Democrats have failed to do anything like that under nearly 10 years of Abhisit's leadership is a sign how feeble he is as a politician.

I think he should have stepped down long ago and refused to be reappointed.

The Democrats, in my opinion, need a capable leader and need a viable platform and organization to be competitive. Then the elites who oppose Thaksin would not need to pull the military-lever in order to run the government.

That change that they did around 2010/11 favoured PTP as much as it would favour the Democrats, that's why PTP voted for it.

What was changed in 2007 to favour the Democrats? How did any changes favour the Democrats more than they did PPP?

Why should a party that campaigns on particular principles change those principals just to win elections? It's like asking a Nazi party to accept Jews so that they can get more votes. The Democrats have their policies based on how they think the economy should work. With that, they get 30+% of the vote.

Thaksin happened to be in power during a booming global economy. His proxy parties managed to continue winning based on the premise that "things were better when Thaksin was in power". That was helped by the Democrats coming to power when the Global Financial Crisis hit. Abhisit and Korn did very well to keep the Thai economy going as strongly as it did. Yingluck tried similar policies to Thaksin and they failed spectacularly, which highlights how lucky Thaksin was to be in power at the time he was.

The Democrats need a new leader only because of the propaganda that is used against Abhisit.

One of the biggest problems for the Democrats is that the Thaksin proxy parties push too far to get Thaksin's crimes whitewashed. That brings out the protesters ... and rinse and repeat. If Yingluck hadn't tried to get the amnesty bill through, and had finished her term with the economic policies that she had, the people would have got the chance to see how much she was screwing the country.

[Eric Loh]

well, I guess it just sounded like that to YOU

So the Thaksin parties have a long-standing, winning coalition. What should the Democrats do? Are they helpless in electoral politics?

They're not helpless. They're a party that, since TRT swallowed up a lot of the smaller NE parties, get a large proportion of the national vote. They must be doing something right.

While they did change the system during the time that they were installed in power to increase seats allocated to the proportional votes in order to increase their chances of winning, they went on to a spectacular loss in 2011 - also in the proportional vote.

2007 changed the system to favor the Democrats

Their amendments in 2011 were made to favor themselves.

The current 'government' will very likely change the system to favor them even more.

But when I ask 'what should they do?', I'm not thinking of 'change the system until if favors us so much that we finally win'. I am thinking more along the lines of creating a platform that appeals to voters and creating an organization that can get out their voters. Politics 101.

The fact that the Democrats have failed to do anything like that under nearly 10 years of Abhisit's leadership is a sign how feeble he is as a politician.

I think he should have stepped down long ago and refused to be reappointed.

The Democrats, in my opinion, need a capable leader and need a viable platform and organization to be competitive. Then the elites who oppose Thaksin would not need to pull the military-lever in order to run the government.

That change that they did around 2010/11 favoured PTP as much as it would favour the Democrats, that's why PTP voted for it.

What was changed in 2007 to favour the Democrats? How did any changes favour the Democrats more than they did PPP?

Why should a party that campaigns on particular principles change those principals just to win elections? It's like asking a Nazi party to accept Jews so that they can get more votes. The Democrats have their policies based on how they think the economy should work. With that, they get 30+% of the vote.

Thaksin happened to be in power during a booming global economy. His proxy parties managed to continue winning based on the premise that "things were better when Thaksin was in power". That was helped by the Democrats coming to power when the Global Financial Crisis hit. Abhisit and Korn did very well to keep the Thai economy going as strongly as it did. Yingluck tried similar policies to Thaksin and they failed spectacularly, which highlights how lucky Thaksin was to be in power at the time he was.

The Democrats need a new leader only because of the propaganda that is used against Abhisit.

One of the biggest problems for the Democrats is that the Thaksin proxy parties push too far to get Thaksin's crimes whitewashed. That brings out the protesters ... and rinse and repeat. If Yingluck hadn't tried to get the amnesty bill through, and had finished her term with the economic policies that she had, the people would have got the chance to see how much she was screwing the country.

I just don't get it. If Ahbisit and Korn did so well to keep the economy strong, why they can't win an election and why Ahbisit is so scared of election, he boycotted thrice. Really he is no Democract and merely a tool of the establishment.

[halloween]

Thaksin entered politics in 1994 and became Foreign Minister that same year, he founded TRT in 1998 and became Prime Minister in 2001.

"After a historic election victory in 2001, he became prime minister, the country's first to serve a full term.Thaksin introduced a range of policies to alleviate rural poverty; highly popular, they helped reduce poverty by half in four years.He launched the country's first universal healthcare program, the 30-baht scheme, as well as a highly notorious drug suppression campaign.Thaksin embarked on a massive program of infrastructure investment, including roads, public transit, and Suvarnabhumi Airport. Nevertheless, public sector debt fell from 57% of GDP in January 2001 to 41% in September 2006. Levels of corruption were perceived to have fallen, with Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index improving from 3.2 to 3.8 between 2001 and 2005.The Thai Rak Thai party won an unprecedented landslide in the 2005 general election, which had the highest voter turnout in Thai history".

Hard to see there ever being a time when Abhisit can match this career trajectory so it's rather silly of you to make the comparison.

And yet, 14 months later he called a snap election to deflect criticism of his corrupt dealings. I guess that is something else Abhisit can't match.

Thaksin's decision to call early elections followed a mounting campaign of criticism of his personal financial dealings. In January the government changed regulations for telecommunications companies allowing an increase in foreign ownership from 24% to 49%, and within the same month he and his family sold its stake in Shin Corporation, a leading communication company, for 73 billion baht (about $US1.88 billion), an enormous profit on which the Shinawatras legally paid no tax, even though family members bought and sold shares in the company in a 24 hour period. This sparked a series of angry demonstrations in the capital.

But the majority of voters in Bangkok and in the Southern region rejected the government. In many constituencies in these areas voters used the "abstain" option on their ballot papers to reject TRT candidates, even when they were running unopposed. TRT received fewer votes than the number of abstention votes in 28 of 36 Bangkok constituencies. In 2005, TRT won 30 of the Bangkok seats.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thai_general_election,_2006

Thaksin and 26 accomplices have been accused of collaborating with state-owned Krung Thai Bank’s executives to approve a Bt9.9 billion loan to Krisada Mahanakorn Plc, a major real estate company, and its subsidiaries, despite their businesses being categorised as non-performing debtors by the bank.http://www.nationmultimedia.com/national/Thaksin-and-26-others-to-be-judged-in-bank-loan-ca-30186962.html

[whybother]

Abhisit is a dud, always has been.

All he ever was, was a presentable front man for the ruling elite, just an empty suit.

The Thai people aren't stupid - that's why Abhisit never won an election, they could see him for what he is - a dud.

Now, with democracy all but dead and buried, who needs a front man anymore.

Goodbye, so long, you've played your role in destroying freedom in this land, now on your way.

Thaksin lost many elections until he formed TRT by buying up the small NE parties.

Thaksin entered politics in 1994 and became Foreign Minister that same year, he founded TRT in 1998 and became Prime Minister in 2001.

"After a historic election victory in 2001, he became prime minister, the country's first to serve a full term.Thaksin introduced a range of policies to alleviate rural poverty; highly popular, they helped reduce poverty by half in four years.He launched the country's first universal healthcare program, the 30-baht scheme, as well as a highly notorious drug suppression campaign.Thaksin embarked on a massive program of infrastructure investment, including roads, public transit, and Suvarnabhumi Airport. Nevertheless, public sector debt fell from 57% of GDP in January 2001 to 41% in September 2006. Levels of corruption were perceived to have fallen, with Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index improving from 3.2 to 3.8 between 2001 and 2005.The Thai Rak Thai party won an unprecedented landslide in the 2005 general election, which had the highest voter turnout in Thai history".

Hard to see there ever being a time when Abhisit can match this career trajectory so it's rather silly of you to make the comparison.

1995. Palang Dharma Party. 7.6% of the vote. Huge loss.

1996. Palang Dharma Party. 2.7% of the vote. Humungous loss. Should he have quit then?

Even in 2001 as TRT after buying a bunch of smaller parties, 40% of the vote.

TRT was made up of regional factions, which is one thing that cost them in 2008.

As pointed out in a post above, Thaksin was lucky to be in power during a booming global economy. His policies didn't fare so well when the economy was crap under Yingluck.

[whybother]

well, I guess it just sounded like that to YOU

So the Thaksin parties have a long-standing, winning coalition. What should the Democrats do? Are they helpless in electoral politics?

They're not helpless. They're a party that, since TRT swallowed up a lot of the smaller NE parties, get a large proportion of the national vote. They must be doing something right.

While they did change the system during the time that they were installed in power to increase seats allocated to the proportional votes in order to increase their chances of winning, they went on to a spectacular loss in 2011 - also in the proportional vote.

2007 changed the system to favor the Democrats

Their amendments in 2011 were made to favor themselves.

The current 'government' will very likely change the system to favor them even more.

But when I ask 'what should they do?', I'm not thinking of 'change the system until if favors us so much that we finally win'. I am thinking more along the lines of creating a platform that appeals to voters and creating an organization that can get out their voters. Politics 101.

The fact that the Democrats have failed to do anything like that under nearly 10 years of Abhisit's leadership is a sign how feeble he is as a politician.

I think he should have stepped down long ago and refused to be reappointed.

The Democrats, in my opinion, need a capable leader and need a viable platform and organization to be competitive. Then the elites who oppose Thaksin would not need to pull the military-lever in order to run the government.

That change that they did around 2010/11 favoured PTP as much as it would favour the Democrats, that's why PTP voted for it.

What was changed in 2007 to favour the Democrats? How did any changes favour the Democrats more than they did PPP?

Why should a party that campaigns on particular principles change those principals just to win elections? It's like asking a Nazi party to accept Jews so that they can get more votes. The Democrats have their policies based on how they think the economy should work. With that, they get 30+% of the vote.

Thaksin happened to be in power during a booming global economy. His proxy parties managed to continue winning based on the premise that "things were better when Thaksin was in power". That was helped by the Democrats coming to power when the Global Financial Crisis hit. Abhisit and Korn did very well to keep the Thai economy going as strongly as it did. Yingluck tried similar policies to Thaksin and they failed spectacularly, which highlights how lucky Thaksin was to be in power at the time he was.

The Democrats need a new leader only because of the propaganda that is used against Abhisit.

One of the biggest problems for the Democrats is that the Thaksin proxy parties push too far to get Thaksin's crimes whitewashed. That brings out the protesters ... and rinse and repeat. If Yingluck hadn't tried to get the amnesty bill through, and had finished her term with the economic policies that she had, the people would have got the chance to see how much she was screwing the country.

I just don't get it. If Ahbisit and Korn did so well to keep the economy strong, why they can't win an election and why Ahbisit is so scared of election, he boycotted thrice. Really he is no Democract and merely a tool of the establishment.

Because all a lot of people cared about was "how much money do I have". They compared how things were under Thaksin to how things were under Abhisit. Most had no idea about what was happening with the global economy.

I mean, even you have no idea what Abhisit and Korn did to keep the Thai economy going. What chance do people have that don't get to see the foreign news that you and I see?

[Robespiere]

Abhisit is a dud, always has been.

All he ever was, was a presentable front man for the ruling elite, just an empty suit.

The Thai people aren't stupid - that's why Abhisit never won an election, they could see him for what he is - a dud.

Now, with democracy all but dead and buried, who needs a front man anymore.

Goodbye, so long, you've played your role in destroying freedom in this land, now on your way.

Thaksin lost many elections until he formed TRT by buying up the small NE parties.

Thaksin entered politics in 1994 and became Foreign Minister that same year, he founded TRT in 1998 and became Prime Minister in 2001.

"After a historic election victory in 2001, he became prime minister, the country's first to serve a full term.Thaksin introduced a range of policies to alleviate rural poverty; highly popular, they helped reduce poverty by half in four years.He launched the country's first universal healthcare program, the 30-baht scheme, as well as a highly notorious drug suppression campaign.Thaksin embarked on a massive program of infrastructure investment, including roads, public transit, and Suvarnabhumi Airport. Nevertheless, public sector debt fell from 57% of GDP in January 2001 to 41% in September 2006. Levels of corruption were perceived to have fallen, with Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index improving from 3.2 to 3.8 between 2001 and 2005.The Thai Rak Thai party won an unprecedented landslide in the 2005 general election, which had the highest voter turnout in Thai history".

Hard to see there ever being a time when Abhisit can match this career trajectory so it's rather silly of you to make the comparison.

1995. Palang Dharma Party. 7.6% of the vote. Huge loss.

1996. Palang Dharma Party. 2.7% of the vote. Humungous loss. Should he have quit then?

Even in 2001 as TRT after buying a bunch of smaller parties, 40% of the vote.

TRT was made up of regional factions, which is one thing that cost them in 2008.

As pointed out in a post above, Thaksin was lucky to be in power during a booming global economy. His policies didn't fare so well when the economy was crap under Yingluck.

Thaksin entered politics in 1994 and was Deputy PM by 1996.

Abhisit entered politics in 1992 and has still never won an election.

QED

[whybother]

Thaksin entered politics in 1994 and was Deputy PM by 1996.

Abhisit entered politics in 1992 and has still never won an election.

QED

So what if Thaksin was deputy PM in 96. He didn't win an election to get there.

edit: Besides that. Why are you comparing Thaksin to Abhisit anyway? Thaksin had already used corrupt connections to get where he got. I don't think Abhisit was aspiring to do that.

Edited October 7, 2014 by whybother

[Eric Loh]

Abhisit is a dud, always has been.

All he ever was, was a presentable front man for the ruling elite, just an empty suit.

The Thai people aren't stupid - that's why Abhisit never won an election, they could see him for what he is - a dud.

Now, with democracy all but dead and buried, who needs a front man anymore.

Goodbye, so long, you've played your role in destroying freedom in this land, now on your way.

Thaksin lost many elections until he formed TRT by buying up the small NE parties.

Thaksin entered politics in 1994 and became Foreign Minister that same year, he founded TRT in 1998 and became Prime Minister in 2001.

"After a historic election victory in 2001, he became prime minister, the country's first to serve a full term.Thaksin introduced a range of policies to alleviate rural poverty; highly popular, they helped reduce poverty by half in four years.He launched the country's first universal healthcare program, the 30-baht scheme, as well as a highly notorious drug suppression campaign.Thaksin embarked on a massive program of infrastructure investment, including roads, public transit, and Suvarnabhumi Airport. Nevertheless, public sector debt fell from 57% of GDP in January 2001 to 41% in September 2006. Levels of corruption were perceived to have fallen, with Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index improving from 3.2 to 3.8 between 2001 and 2005.The Thai Rak Thai party won an unprecedented landslide in the 2005 general election, which had the highest voter turnout in Thai history".

Hard to see there ever being a time when Abhisit can match this career trajectory so it's rather silly of you to make the comparison.

1995. Palang Dharma Party. 7.6% of the vote. Huge loss.

1996. Palang Dharma Party. 2.7% of the vote. Humungous loss. Should he have quit then?

Even in 2001 as TRT after buying a bunch of smaller parties, 40% of the vote.

TRT was made up of regional factions, which is one thing that cost them in 2008.

As pointed out in a post above, Thaksin was lucky to be in power during a booming global economy. His policies didn't fare so well when the economy was crap under Yingluck.

Thaksin came into power with the backdrop of the aftermath of the '97 financial meltdown and a USD3 B IMF loan. The reason why the economy was booming was due to his boldness in implementing economic policies that saw Thailand reduced its foreign debt by 2/3 and paid off the IMF loan in '03.

And I have to add that the '97 melt down was a result of the Dem government bank liberalism policies.

If the economy during Yingluck was crap, the major credit rating agencies would have downgraded the BBB+ but no they didn't.

[whybother]

Thaksin came into power with the backdrop of the aftermath of the '97 financial meltdown and a USD3 B IMF loan. The reason why the economy was booming was due to his boldness in implementing economic policies that saw Thailand reduced its foreign debt by 2/3 and paid off the IMF loan in '03.

And I have to add that the '97 melt down was a result of the Dem government bank liberalism policies.

If the economy during Yingluck was crap, the major credit rating agencies would have downgraded the BBB+ but no they didn't.

Yes. And Thaksin's miraculous policies not only boosted the economies of the region, but of the whole world.

ha ha ha ... do you know who was in the deputy PM when the crash happened in 1997?

OK. The economy wasn't crap while Yingluck was in power. Not sure why her policies failed though. Maybe they were crap policies.

From your 3 statements there, it's clear you have absolutely no idea about Thailand economics over the last 20 years.

[jayboy]

Thaksin came into power with the backdrop of the aftermath of the '97 financial meltdown and a USD3 B IMF loan. The reason why the economy was booming was due to his boldness in implementing economic policies that saw Thailand reduced its foreign debt by 2/3 and paid off the IMF loan in '03.

And I have to add that the '97 melt down was a result of the Dem government bank liberalism policies.

If the economy during Yingluck was crap, the major credit rating agencies would have downgraded the BBB+ but no they didn't.

Yes. And Thaksin's miraculous policies not only boosted the economies of the region, but of the whole world.

ha ha ha ... do you know who was in the deputy PM when the crash happened in 1997?

OK. The economy wasn't crap while Yingluck was in power. Not sure why her policies failed though. Maybe they were crap policies.

From your 3 statements there, it's clear you have absolutely no idea about Thailand economics over the last 20 years.

Frankly having just seen the exchange between yourself and Eric Loh it is embarrassingly obvious who is clueless about recent Thai economic history.

[whybother]

Thaksin came into power with the backdrop of the aftermath of the '97 financial meltdown and a USD3 B IMF loan. The reason why the economy was booming was due to his boldness in implementing economic policies that saw Thailand reduced its foreign debt by 2/3 and paid off the IMF loan in '03.

And I have to add that the '97 melt down was a result of the Dem government bank liberalism policies.

If the economy during Yingluck was crap, the major credit rating agencies would have downgraded the BBB+ but no they didn't.

Yes. And Thaksin's miraculous policies not only boosted the economies of the region, but of the whole world.

ha ha ha ... do you know who was in the deputy PM when the crash happened in 1997?

OK. The economy wasn't crap while Yingluck was in power. Not sure why her policies failed though. Maybe they were crap policies.

From your 3 statements there, it's clear you have absolutely no idea about Thailand economics over the last 20 years.

Frankly having just seen the exchange between yourself and Eric Loh it is embarrassingly obvious who is clueless about recent Thai economic history.

OK. my bad. He was DPM earlier, and then became DPM after.

But I'll stand by the other 2 statements. Thaksin benefited from a booming global economy. His same policies didn't work so well for Yingluck under a scratchy global economy.

[fab4]

Thaksin entered politics in 1994 and was Deputy PM by 1996.

Abhisit entered politics in 1992 and has still never won an election.

QED

So what if Thaksin was deputy PM in 96. He didn't win an election to get there.

edit: Besides that. Why are you comparing Thaksin to Abhisit anyway? Thaksin had already used corrupt connections to get where he got. I don't think Abhisit was aspiring to do that.

Abhisit was not aspiring to use "corrupt connections to get where he got"? The very idea. Nothing corrupt about having the army broker the deal

“Then the PPP clique was resurrected under the newly-founded PueaThai party and tried to form a new government with its former coalition partners, Gen Anupong reportedly tried another trick.

During this power vacuum the army chief was reported to have become the key man seeking an agreement from the former PPP’s coalition partners to switch their support to the opposition Democrat party and form the next coalition government. Amid intense lobbying by both Puea Thai and Democrat camps, many key members of the coalition parties and key factions within them were seen visiting Gen Anupong at his official residence in the compound of the First Infantry Regiment off Vibhavadi Rangsit Road, both in small and large groups.

Among these special visitors were reportedly Newin Chidchob and Sora-at Klinprathum, two faction leaders in the now dissolved PPP. The two men were seen at Gen Anupong’s residence on Dec 4 along with Gen Prayuth Chan-ocha, the army’s chief-of-staff. Later, Pradit Phataraprasit, secretary-general of Ruam Jai Thai Chart Pattana party reportedly called on Gen Prayuth at his residence, also in the regiment compound.

In the meantime, Democrat secretary-general Suthep Thaugsubankept in touch with Gen Anupong by phone. Mr Suthep and Gen Anupong became acquaintances when the Council for National Security was in power.

On Dec 6, shortly before the Democrat’s plan to form a new coalition government was announced, Mr Suthep reportedly led a group of key members of the Democrats’ prospective coalition partners to meet Gen Anupong at the residence of former army chief Gen Prawit Wongsuwan, who is well respected by Gen Anupong. Even though the meetings were supposed to be secret events, they ended up in the open because of the unusual manner of the visits. Suddenly, Gen Anupong was viewed by the media as the “coalition formation manager”.

And so it happened, Newin and the coalition parties betrayed Thaksin, taking the side of the Democrats (and the Army).

“Gen Anupong accepted that meetings between him and politicians from the Democrats and other smaller parties at his residence at the First Infantry Regiment on Vibhavadi Rangsit road paved the way for the Democrats to eventually form a new coalition government.

http://asiancorrespondent.com/39690/newin-vs-the-army/

Edited October 7, 2014 by fab4