Eric Loh

11 minutes ago, Pilotman said:

They can't, the Military retain a veto in the new Constitution . 

There is military veto power in the constitution or perhaps you meant a coup. 

Will the 250 less the military senators maintain their loyalty for the full term. They are only human and can be influenced by many factors. I don’t think loyalty is sustainable over time. 

41 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

Well, last time Yingluck had her photo taken with a very big "Stop Corruption" sign. She subsequently announced several times that there was no corruption in her government.

 

Worked for her!

Probably ranked alongside Prayut declaring victory over corruption as recent as September last year or Ahbisit signalling zero tolerance for corruption when he took power. See every leader do this song and dance routine. No cherry picking mate.

29 minutes ago, Arkady said:

Most commentators seem to think this is the most likely scenario. The Senate can vote to elect a PM and on bills regarded as pertinent to national reform but not in no confidence debates.  Therefore a government that doesn't have a majority in the lower house is going to have problems in addition to the normal problems of coalitions.

The no confidence filing not only extend to the PM( assuming his dirty tricks did the job) but also to any of his ministers. Just need 1/3 of Parliament to file that motion and debated. Wouldn’t that be fun and games having Prayut defend his policies. Should the pro-democracy coalition has the numbers, Prayut will be one hell of a jam. The appointed senators would just have to watch on the sides. The junta will be kicking themselves for not fixing the constitution to have a bicameral voting on no confidence motion.  

"รูปภาพสำหรับ Prayut boast that he prevented flood in south"

The great man repertoire may include sermoning rain. 

9 minutes ago, DrTuner said:

With a usurper as PM that's a no-go from the start.

You absolutely right. The PM that I am referring will have to be himself or herself corruption free, strong will to fight corruption, good ethics and off course elected. Will Thailand get a Lee Kuan Yew. Maybe, maybe not. 

None of the parties seem eager to fight the endemic corruption. Maybe none so bold or each still harbour thoughts of feasting off the trough. A good start for fighting corruption will be a formation of a commission like the Hong Kong's ICAC (Independent Commission against Corruption) in 1974 or Singapore's CPIB (Corruption Practices Investigation Bureau) in 1952 which were specifically tasked to eradicate corruption and were totally independent with special powers and only report to the PM. Alas all these parties seem to be paying only lip service.  

26 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

Everyone in a position of power, in the elite strata, is well aware of the laws on defamation and the computer crimes act.

 

Yet they still keep doing things to get sued and prosecuted!

 

Says a lot about the mentality of the top strata!

Don’t you want to know how he got his insignia too. Maybe we will be impressed with his explanation. Why need to be so upset. 

12 minutes ago, robblok said:

Big caveat is indeed how accurate this poll is.

 

But its a big step back if its true, and you cant call it a miscalculation because Thai Raksa and PTP do field candidates in all constituencies so just count them together. Even then its much lower as before PTP is losing votes.

 

But of course all of this is speculation as this might just be an other fake or inaccurate pol. 

Thai Raksa didn't consider the risk of dissolution when the planning was hatched. Both big parties will suffered losing seats to the PPRP if the poll is accurate. That will mean PPRP grabbing seats in incumbent North, Northeast and South constituencies which are tradition strongholds of PTP and DP. Can they pull this off? I will wait and see. Also wait and see if the CC's ruling on Thai Raksa tomorrow.  

If the poll is correct, it show PTP miscalculate big time. For this election they only put 250 candidates in the 350 constituencies and confident to win big. The 45% deficit will be a big blow. Thai Raksa survival is still at stake and even if they survive will be unlikely to win constituencies and party list to make up the deficit and thwart Prayut ascendancy. The only hope is for FFP is win seats enough to form a coalition to be able to frustrate Prayut. However the big question that will have big influence is how the Dem Party will react. The caveat is how accurate is this poll.   

2 hours ago, JAG said:

The electoral arithmetic, explained earlier, tells us that that he will need 375 seats to become Prime Minister. 250 of them are senators, they're in the bag. Then he will need 125 MPs. Whilst Phalang Pratcherat and it's allies may or may not achieve that, there is 60 days for: verification, authentication, recounts, petitions to the EC, disqualification for many reasons and so forth. I imagine that he already knows that he will achieve that magic figure of 375. Why should he bother with going to rallies?

Once again, the Dem, BJT and possibly CTP will play the king makers. Like you, I doubt PPRP and ACT will win 125 seats; probably half in the region of 50-60 'safe' seats. The question is really whether Ahbisit will turn his back again on the people and whether he will accept a ministerial position which is a heavy loss of face. Anutin will likely join as his company and province will be rewarded handsomely from projects. CTP with the the younger Silipa-archa at the helm may be too weak to follow his own path and likely to fold and join the military coalition. I don't think the EC's antics post election will have much effect. There will be by-elections if MPs are to be disqualified and the party will probably win again with another candidate. As for Prayut, he is safe as PPRP has decided not to include him at rallies so as not to violate any laws. On that note, I proceeded to the toilet and throw out. ???? 

1 minute ago, Golden Triangle said:

So this geezer is on the junta's payroll then, now I get it.

Ultra yellow geezer. 

7 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

So you don't believe any of the violence, in 2008 and 2014 was instigated by the Shins, their cronies or their violent street thugs? Perhaps you think the Black Shirted armed mercenaries were really double-agents who infiltrated the peaceful Shin gangs?

 

The common denominator were Thaksin puppets in government trying to pervert justice and get him back to Thailand a free, pardoned, and above the law individual.

 

 

There were violence perpetrated by both colours. No one can deny that. As to the Black shirts association with UDD and Shins, you need to stick to the fact that the police investigation reveal nothing even with their arrest of 8 suspects. The amnesty bill followed the law and ceased when the upper house didn't support the bill due to the massive demonstration. Why you persist to regurgitate something that you already know.  

31 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Let Takki do his business up country and make sure his violent red mob never comes to Bangkok.

That would be a win win situation for everybody.

I like it quiet and peaceful on the streets without the looting arsonist red mob.

Not if you living around Laksi and Chaeng Watthana where Issara pitched a fortress at Government Complex for 2 months and his goons attacked innocent bystanders who strayed near his encampment. Nor the 7 months of PAD occupation of Don Maeung and Government House. It was neither quiet nor peaceful at the 7 Bangkok shutdown sites too. 

3 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Not if Britain crashes out of the EU with no deal! Then expect the pound to plummet.

The consolation being a boon to the manufacturers and a swing from dependence on its financial services. 

How to attract investments when he and his military are the source of political uncertainty. Best thing he can do to attract investment is for him to back off from the election and pledge that he and his military will never ever stage any coups. If he surrender to the court and be trialed for treason, it will be icing on the cake.

35 minutes ago, phantomfiddler said:

None other than Thaksin. The redshirts were a violent bunch, committing murders almost daily until the coup came along with Prayut restoring law and order.

Really a well conceived plan by creating and instigating violence for Prayut to seize power claiming to restore law and order. Go ask Suthep. 

10 minutes ago, robblok said:

I am Dutch in my country there is an organisation that takes all the plans of parties and puts them in a computer model for a few different kind of economic scenarios. All the plans must pass this scrutiny so parties can't make election promises that are impossible to keep. (centraal plan bureau is the organisation that does that in my country)

 

I thought it would be something all mature democracies have, to make sure that promises can be kept and would not be based on hot air. Seems like a logical thing to do so there is a level playing field. 

 

 

(below an news article about it in Dutch sorry, it shows not only if the promises can be kept but also how it will affect the economy, education, differences between income, ect) This way the voters in my country get clear information before voting. 

https://www.volkskrant.nl/nieuws-achtergrond/zo-pakken-de-partijprogramma-s-uit-bekijk-de-doorrekening-per-onderwerp~b403a57e7/?referer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2F

 

 

 

 

Thanks but I don't read Dutch. In any case, just for argument sake, what if the political parties in your country had policies nicely balanced in your model assimilation and renege or change the policies after elected. Good example in USA when Trump went on a populist agenda to renege and gave tax cuts to the rich after being elected. Really not a effective method IMO.

Here the parties campaigned on their policies and if they win will have to be accountable to the people who voted them in. They will have to ensure that there are sufficient funds to finance those policies within the Fiscal and Financial Law on budget deficit and debt to GDP. In addition to them being under the eagle eyes of legal entities, oppositions, activists and NGOs. When their tenure is over, the voters will be the ultimate arbitrators of their performance.