Prime Minister Worries About Thailand Image

[Oberkommando]

Nothing remarkable about those figures, growth was far higher in the late 80s, early 90s. The Democrats had to save Thailand after the Tom Yang Kung crisis, they're used to coming in to pick up the mess after others, Thaksin came in after the Democrats had done the hard work, BTW who sold the Thai baht abroad knowing in advance it would be devalued?

Yes, the figures speak for themselves.

Of course we could post stats showing how under the TRT Thailand's GDP almost doubled and that the poorest areas in the country doubled their productivity. Or the massive reduction in poverty especially in the rural areas that suffered so much under the Democrats. We could go on and on but those are the facts and the reasons the Democrats are unelectable, ten years on, and much to the chagrin of the coup supporters.

As to the devalue of the Baht it was the crash that caused the floatation after the government refused to devalue it.

Thaksin profiteering from the Baht crashing has been accused by his opposition for many years now and it's old hat. Clutching at straws even.

I trust you have evidence to support these "facts"? Please, share it with us.

I thought it was common knowledge? Certainly should be if you are commenting so vocally on Thai politics and current affairs.

You can start your research here.

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTTHAI...full-report.pdf

One Tambon One Product

http://www.adb.org/Documents/Books/ADO/2006/tha.asp

Need any further info just ask.

[sriracha john]

Suthep's car pelted with eggs, water bottles in Pathum Thani

Pathum Thani - Some 500 red-shirted protesters rallied in front of the Defence College Saturday morning and pelted the car of Deputy Prime Minister Suthep Thaugsuban with eggs and water bottles.

A TV cameraman of Channel 5 was hit with an egg.

Before Suthep arrived, the protesters also burned effigies of Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva and Suthep and burned mock-up coffins.

Some 200 policemen were deployed to keep security and prevent the protesters from entering the college's compound.

- The Nation / 2009-03-14

=================================================================

Photographer injured in ping pong bomb attack against Suthep's car

Pathum Thani - A ping pong bomb was thrown at the car of Deputy Prime Minister Suthep Thaugsuban when it was driving through red-shirted protesters in Pathum Thani.

Chatchai Kebui, a photographer of the Public Relations Department's Pathum Thani office, suffered minor injury on his stomach when he was hit by the bomb.

The bomb was thrown at Suthep's car when it was leaving the National Defence College at 11:30 am.

The explosion also terrified the protesters.

- The Nation / 2009-03-14

[ballpoint]

Nothing remarkable about those figures, growth was far higher in the late 80s, early 90s. The Democrats had to save Thailand after the Tom Yang Kung crisis, they're used to coming in to pick up the mess after others, Thaksin came in after the Democrats had done the hard work, BTW who sold the Thai baht abroad knowing in advance it would be devalued?

Yes, the figures speak for themselves.

Of course we could post stats showing how under the TRT Thailand's GDP almost doubled and that the poorest areas in the country doubled their productivity. Or the massive reduction in poverty especially in the rural areas that suffered so much under the Democrats. We could go on and on but those are the facts and the reasons the Democrats are unelectable, ten years on, and much to the chagrin of the coup supporters.

As to the devalue of the Baht it was the crash that caused the floatation after the government refused to devalue it.

Thaksin profiteering from the Baht crashing has been accused by his opposition for many years now and it's old hat. Clutching at straws even.

I trust you have evidence to support these "facts"? Please, share it with us.

I thought it was common knowledge? Certainly should be if you are commenting so vocally on Thai politics and current affairs.

You can start your research here.

http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTTHAI...full-report.pdf

One Tambon One Product

http://www.adb.org/Documents/Books/ADO/2006/tha.asp

Need any further info just ask.

Very interesting. The World Bank report says pretty much what I posted above, the rural poor have had an increasing standard of living for the past 3 decades, which backs up my own observations living in Buri Ram. "During the last 35 years, the Northeast was one of the fastest growing economies in the world". "The poverty head count fell from 56% in 1988 to 17% in 2004." Trying to give the credit for this to Thaksin is being a little ambitious don't you think, especially in the second quote, where he had been in power for only 3 of those years? There was no appreciable change in the rate of "progress" around here when Thaksin was in charge. Indeed, as I said above, the single largest benefits, electricity, a water supply and a paved road, came under the Chatichai and Chuan governments. You'll have to do better than that, but I fear you won't be able to. I have connections to the local Amphur and Tambon here, and am well aware of the situation in terms of increased production - through new crop strains and increased efficiency in the ploughing, planting and harvest - nothing to do with Thaksin, and don't see any of this "massive reduction in poverty" for those "that suffered so much under the Democrats". Probably because, as I said, and the report makes clear, poverty has been reducing over the last 35 years, and we never suffered under the Democrats at all.

I suggest that if you're going to comment so vocally on these matters, you actually talk to people with experience, rather than selectively take bits of selected reports.

Edited March 14, 2009 by ballpoint

[jumnien]

Looks like the PAD bomb squad is at it again!

[sriracha john]

Red-shirts greet ministers

More than 150 red-shirt protesters in Pathum Thani province welcomed Deputy Prime Minister Suthep Thaugsuban's visit to an educational institution on Saturday morning by throwing plastic bottles and eggs at his car.

Upon his return, a small explosive, or a ping-pong bomb, was thrown at his motorcade. The windshield of a security car cracked while a cameraman from the state-run NBT station was wounded.

Another cameraman of TV channel 5 was hit by an egg when he was capturing the picture of Mr Suthep arriving at the venue.

Continued here:

http://www.bangkokpost.com/breakingnews/13...hep-hot-welcome

[sriracha john]

Looks like the Red Shirt Bombers at it again.

[Steve2UK]

Richard Lloyd Parry is Asia Editor of The Times and has been based in Tokyo since 1995.

Based on his inaccuracies and glaring omissions, it's a shame he doesn't get to Thailand very much.

Well, I've asked twice what these claimed "inaccuracies" are. Days pass and still no answer. So, looks like it was just more blow-hard hot air........ again.

[sriracha john]

Richard Lloyd Parry is Asia Editor of The Times and has been based in Tokyo since 1995.

Based on his inaccuracies and glaring omissions, it's a shame he doesn't get to Thailand very much.

Well, I've asked twice what these claimed "inaccuracies" are. Days pass and still no answer. So, looks like it was just more blow-hard hot air........ again.

I thought Post # 390 provided as much an explanation as deemed necessary, but since you're demanding more... and as it's never a good idea to delay responding to a crying baby if one wants any peace and quiet... here's more explanation in the following post.

Edited March 15, 2009 by sriracha john

[sriracha john]

INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY

Last night, March 14, Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva gave a speech at his old alma mater: Oxford's St John's College.

Ahead of the speech "Taking on the challenges of democracy", the international anti-Abhisit (pro-Thaksin?) brigade went on a rampage.

With all due respect to Richard Lloyd Parry, Asia editor of The Times, and his March 13 commentary, "The charmer making a mess of his country".

Continued here:

http://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/opinion...tual-dishonesty

[hammered]

Here are a couple of excellent imho articles about:

Thaksin (by Chang Noi):

http://nationmultimedia.com/2009/03/16/opi...on_30097977.php

and Newin - "The Man who could be PM":

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2009/03/16...cs_30097972.php

it is interesting to see analysts moving on to consider the future of Thailand with Thaksin seen as marginalised and weaker and Newin as increasingly powerful.

[Steve2UK]

Richard Lloyd Parry is Asia Editor of The Times and has been based in Tokyo since 1995.

Based on his inaccuracies and glaring omissions, it's a shame he doesn't get to Thailand very much.

Well, I've asked twice what these claimed "inaccuracies" are. Days pass and still no answer. So, looks like it was just more blow-hard hot air........ again.

I thought Post # 390 provided as much an explanation as deemed necessary, but since you're demanding more... and as it's never a good idea to delay responding to a crying baby if one wants any peace and quiet... here's more explanation in the following post.

I see and hear no crying baby. You were asked a straightforward and grown-up question twice - and the response (when it finally comes) is to a] point to an earlier Plus ( ) post and b] refer to a later Bangkok Post article. While not wanting to ape your disreputable habit of misrepresentation and fabricating your own words to put into others' mouths, it seems reasonable to assume we're to regard those references as now constituting your "answer".

While it may be (no doubt unintentionally) amusing for Plus to use the word "shrink" in his post, the rest of it not unusually is a matter of opinion and not facts - however much he continues ignoring the difference, playing fast and loose with the latter.

The nub of the Bangkok Post piece appears to be that Abhisit's government is no different/worse and no more/less legitimate than Thaksin's/others' - and that Parry is wrong to single out the current regime for criticism given the long-standing/continuing flaws in the Thai system and realities on the ground. I remarked previously that I thought Parry's piece was unduly harsh on Abhisit (personally) in its tone and IMO also laid blame for the military's handling of the Rohingya at the wrong door - as well as putting it in the wrong month.

The BP writer also seems (IMO) unduly harsh on Abhisit - e.g. "It may be true, as Mr Parry stated, that PM Abhisit is 'presiding over a chaotic and callous regime' ". Like Ballpoint, I am not comfortable with that word "callous" applied at least implicitly to Abhisit personally - for reasons I have stated elsewhere. But the BP piece, like the Times piece (and academic's letter) to which it refers are the writers' opinion and they're entitled to express it - as opinion. Again, the BP piece criticises Parry for not criticising Thaksin enough - presumably that's one of the "glaring omissions" to which you originally referred? But then - the Times piece was written specifically in advance of an upcoming speech on the challenges of democracy by Abhisit and not Thaksin. Hardly surprising that it would concentrate on the present incumbent who is also the one due to give the speech? Incidentally, nowhere in his piece does Parry suggest that Abhisit should not give the speech. Lee Jones may have done so in his letter - but Parry didn't and it's a shame that the BP writer conflated and confused the two.

I have reason to believe that the restriction on quoting in full from BP articles will be lifted shortly but, until that happens officially, I can only recommend that members follow your link to the full article and read it carefully to note what it contains and concedes (did you?) - very refreshing and typical of what we have come to expect from Voranai Vanijaka. I suggest that they also look through some very pertinent reader comments that follow it. Khun Voranai makes the IMO very valid point (I'm paraphrasing) that democracy is a much less well-developed process in Thailand than its longer-established counterparts elsewhere - and criticises Parry for not highlighting this factor's significance. I'm inclined to agree - it goes to my own point about the overall tone of the Times piece....... but that's a matter of emphasis and not per se anything to do with factual inaccuracies.

Can't give you any FAFF* score for this. Being generous by nature, I would award 2 for even trying............... but your post is just too lazy to rate that.

*Fred Astaire Fancy Footwork

Edited March 16, 2009 by Steve2UK

[Steve2UK]

Here are a couple of excellent imho articles about:

Thaksin (by Chang Noi):

http://nationmultimedia.com/2009/03/16/opi...on_30097977.php

and Newin - "The Man who could be PM":

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2009/03/16...cs_30097972.php

it is interesting to see analysts moving on to consider the future of Thailand with Thaksin seen as marginalised and weaker and Newin as increasingly powerful.

I agree - both excellent articles and very interesting to juxtapose Thaksin's waning to (near) insignificance while Newin's star and clout rise.

On the first, it would seem that Thaksin's only hope of a return lies in economic conditions getting much, much worse - he seems to talk more and more about that. Close to 40% in a recent ABAC poll* still see him as a better economic manager - uncomfortably close to the "almost half" who believe the opposite. He presumably thinks that his score might improve if enough people get financially hurt to hanker after the "good old days" as they see them. One hopes not - in any sense.

Newin the eternal cat-with-nine-lives survivor and beneficiary of others' fall. Difficult to see how the Abhisit government could have happened (or continue, come to that) without him - but for Abhisit it must feel like a cross between having a major cuckoo in the nest and having the tiger by the tail.

[ * http://nationmultimedia.com/2009/03/16/pol...cs_30097967.php ]

[hammered]

Here are a couple of excellent imho articles about:

Thaksin (by Chang Noi):

http://nationmultimedia.com/2009/03/16/opi...on_30097977.php

and Newin - "The Man who could be PM":

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2009/03/16...cs_30097972.php

it is interesting to see analysts moving on to consider the future of Thailand with Thaksin seen as marginalised and weaker and Newin as increasingly powerful.

I agree - both excellent articles and very interesting to juxtapose Thaksin's waning to (near) insignificance while Newin's star and clout rise.

On the first, it would seem that Thaksin's only hope of a return lies in economic conditions getting much, much worse - he seems to talk more and more about that. Close to 40% in a recent ABAC poll* still see him as a better economic manager - uncomfortably close to the "almost half" who believe the opposite. He presumably thinks that his score might improve if enough people get financially hurt to hanker after the "good old days" as they see them. One hopes not - in any sense.

Newin the eternal cat-with-nine-lives survivor and beneficiary of others' fall. Difficult to see how the Abhisit government could have happened (or continue, come to that) without him - but for Abhisit it must feel like a cross between having a major cuckoo in the nest and having the tiger by the tail.

[ * http://nationmultimedia.com/2009/03/16/pol...cs_30097967.php ]

The Newin conundrum is interesting. Newin and Thaksin are now as unreconcilable enemies as you can get, so Abhisist on the one hand knows that Newin's primary aim is to wreck Thaksin and steal his politcal apparatus which is going along nicely and largely unreported right now. However, of course Newin's ultimate aim is to become PM and he has a good chance of achieving it. Abhisit will be aware of the challenge in the futurte but unable to do much about it. Newin too wont want Abhisit too succesful as that makes him too powerful an opponent in th efuture. However, Newin wont want to destroy the government too early. Then Newin has the ban. It may just be that Newin will see it as more to his advantage to see the ban out than pull a dodgy looking amnesty. That is an interesting call.

As for Thaksin. Watch some of the more recent cases. If the shipping Moo case gets big Thaksin is in very big trouble. It is fairly obvious why shipping Moo was killed. It does seem though that those of us who thought a deal would be done with Thaksin are going to be proven wrong as this one looks to be going to an end game. Chang Noi's final comment about Thaksin trying to pull a desperate gambit of "with me outside the country I will be tied to ideas I dont agree with and used to maximise them" if correct shows Thaksin is indeed lacking many good cards. However, if Thaksin doesnt go quiet there may be an attempt to skewer him on outstanding cases fairly quickly and some of them have reasonably strong evidence. Remember how Yuth "dooyen" squealed when the shipping moo case was restarted.

[Plus]

There is a cuple of letters in the Nation today about Times article and Jones letter.

They all basically state the same thing - the authors are clueless and have no idea what they are ranting about.

In case of Times - Democrats were not just "decisevely defeated" in 2007. The fact is they got more votes for their national policy agenda than pro-Thaksin PPP, and the highest number of Parliament seats in their history ever.

And the gross mistake of putting Rohingya incindent in January and blaming it on Abhisit is simply inexcuseable, inexcusable for any of our resident TV critics, let alone for a publication like Times.

Like that guy writing in Bangkok Post - this kind of bullshit Thais can get every day from their usual sources, foreign "experts" input of this quality is disappointing, to say the least.

[Journalist]

^But compared to the Times, so few people internationally read the letters page of the Nation - penned by the likes of 'John Arnone of Yasothon'.

What is the sound of a tree falling in the woods, - if there is nobody there to hear it?

[Oberkommando]

^But compared to the Times, so few people internationally read the letters page of the Nation - penned by the likes of 'John Arnone of Yasothon'.

What is the sound of a tree falling in the woods, - if there is nobody there to hear it?

Anyone who reads the Nation, and even takes time to write to that paper must be an expert right enough.

[Steve2UK]

There is a cuple of letters in the Nation today about Times article and Jones letter.

They all basically state the same thing - the authors are clueless and have no idea what they are ranting about.

In case of Times - Democrats were not just "decisevely defeated" in 2007. The fact is they got more votes for their national policy agenda than pro-Thaksin PPP, and the highest number of Parliament seats in their history ever.

And the gross mistake of putting Rohingya incindent in January and blaming it on Abhisit is simply inexcuseable, inexcusable for any of our resident TV critics, let alone for a publication like Times.

Like that guy writing in Bangkok Post - this kind of bullshit Thais can get every day from their usual sources, foreign "experts" input of this quality is disappointing, to say the least.

[source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Thailand]

Are these the not "decisive defeat" results you're talking about?

I looked to find the letters in The Nation online - found just one (but granted the other might be just in the print edition). If it's the one at http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2009/03/16...on_30097979.php ("Know Asian culture before judging its politics"), then it's hard to match it to your description - not to mention the fact that it only refers to the Lee Jones letter and not both "authors" i.e. not to Parry's Times piece.

In terms of letter-writing, last time I looked there were 61 comments (split more or less evenly pro-con, I'd say) on the piece by "that guy writing in Bangkok Post" - rather more than two anyway. Which proves what? There are 2 people who wrote to The Nation who wrote something you like to agree with (and embellish/exaggerate beyond all recognition) - and about 30 writing something along similar lines to the Bangkok Post. So?

As I've pointed out earlier, "that guy writing in Bangkok Post" makes some very valid points - and takes for granted many things which you consistently deny are the case. Unfortunately, you appear to have spotted only one of his points to report here - and, unsurprisingly, it's just the one you like. To save people searching back on this thread, here's the link to the full Post article again:

http://www.bangkokpost.com/opinion/opinion...tual-dishonesty

[Old Man River]

The Newin conundrum is interesting. Newin and Thaksin are now as unreconcilable enemies as you can get, so Abhisist on the one hand knows that Newin's primary aim is to wreck Thaksin and steal his politcal apparatus which is going along nicely and largely unreported right now. However, of course Newin's ultimate aim is to become PM and he has a good chance of achieving it. Abhisit will be aware of the challenge in the futurte but unable to do much about it. Newin too wont want Abhisit too succesful as that makes him too powerful an opponent in th efuture. However, Newin wont want to destroy the government too early. Then Newin has the ban. It may just be that Newin will see it as more to his advantage to see the ban out than pull a dodgy looking amnesty. That is an interesting call.

As discussed, we see things exactly the same (scary). The big question is, when Newin calls for a dissolution towards the end of the year, with his ban, who will he be setting up to take Abhisit's place?

[animatic]

I think Newin will sit tight longer. He can move more pieces into place,

and when he moves he will be in a much stronger position.

He likes power more than titles.

That maybe 2 days after his ban is up,

and his coffers are totally topped up.

And every pawn lined up.

Edited March 16, 2009 by animatic

[Old Man River]

I think Newin will sit tight longer. He can move more pieces into place,

and when he moves he will be in a much stronger position.

He likes power more than titles.

It could be, but the betting right now is sooner than later (my view as well). Your last comment is in agreement. The longer Abhisit stays in power, the harder it will be for Newin's group to move him out. Abhisit is, of course, acutely aware of this so the coalition remains shaky and this isn't going to change.

Such is the nature of coalition governments.

Edited March 16, 2009 by Old Man River

[Plus]

In proportional vote count Democrats won, that's not a "decisive defeat" as it's this proportional vote that judged party's overall popularity rather than voting for local pooyais.

I don't understand the need to defend that awful article by Parry with rants and sarcasm based on either wrong or heavily slanted information.

Yes, Times has bigger readership. Does it mean its opinion pieces are closer to the truth? Obviously not.

In this day and age of news overload it's credibility that counts, if they want to ride on the strength of their name alone - good luck to them. They might think Thailand is not important enough to double check their opinions and editorials - good luck to them, too.

And Jones got busted when pro-Thaksin side revealed his letter first. He tried to backtrack but it was too late, credibility was lost, Abhisit went on and the likes of Jones and Giles got squashed like bugs against the windshield.

Democrats scored a hat trick against the reds here.

[Journalist]

I think Newin will sit tight longer. He can move more pieces into place,

and when he moves he will be in a much stronger position.

He likes power more than titles.

I think the lure of ill gotten gains will just be too tempting. His boys will pull some embarrasing transport-related scam. Abhisit will try to contain the shame and stand by him at first....

Like some politician's wife whose husband has been caught inside a King's Cross rent boy....

...but it will all be too gruesome, and he will get rid of Newin, and he will be sidelined in the appropriate way, jail, a longer ban, exile, etc etc......

[Pierrot]

I think Newin will sit tight longer. He can move more pieces into place,

and when he moves he will be in a much stronger position.

He likes power more than titles.

I think the lure of ill gotten gains will just be too tempting. His boys will pull some embarrasing transport-related scam. Abhisit will try to contain the shame and stand by him at first....

Like some politician's wife whose husband has been caught inside a King's Cross rent boy....

...but it will all be too gruesome, and he will get rid of Newin, and he will be sidelined in the appropriate way, jail, a longer ban, exile, etc etc......

I believe you got it all wrong, Abhisit owes his position to Newin, not the other way around. Abhisit has no personal power base, never won any election, just a good looking puppet. Actually it was very funny to read an English magazine describes Abhisit as the heartthrob of Bangkok middle-aged women, which is basically his only political achievement. Actually a very expendable person.

[Steve2UK]

In proportional vote count Democrats won, that's not a "decisive defeat" as it's this proportional vote that judged party's overall popularity rather than voting for local pooyais.

I don't understand the need to defend that awful article by Parry with rants and sarcasm based on either wrong or heavily slanted information.

(Cue the "Twilight Zone" theme music)

"Welcome to "Plusworld", folks. In case you hadn't noticed, they do things differently there...............".

I've watched my fair share of election night programmes over the years and even worked on two of them in the UK. I think it's a safe bet that any losing party's spin doctor trying to present these figures as anything but a trouncing would be drowned out by gales of laughter - and possibly nominated for the first joint award of an Oscar with the Pulitzer Prize for Fiction.

The Democrats may have won "the highest number of Parliament seats in their history ever". And it was still 68 fewer than PPP. Do you get it yet? They lost.

Too right you don't understand. BTW - what "rants" here other than your own?

Edited March 16, 2009 by Steve2UK

[Plus]

You probably don't get it that Thailand doesn't have a two party system, there's no run off either. "Winning" and "losing" depends on your ability to form and keep alliances.

Democrats nearly doubled their seat count, and in any multiparty system it would not be described as a "decisive defeat", and it would give such party a strong bargaining position in the fight for alliances. That's what Democrats eventually did - wrestled control of junior parties.

Dems were ready to form their own coalition right after the elections, btw, should PPP's attempt fail. And they told that straight away, gentelmanly allowing PPP to have a go first. Of course PPP spokesmen presented it differently, and it apparently made a big impression on Parry and co, but the reality everntually caught up with them - PPP's coalition collapsed and the "victors" were left isolated.

[Steve2UK]

You probably don't get it that Thailand doesn't have a two party system, there's no run off either. "Winning" and "losing" depends on your ability to form and keep alliances.

Democrats nearly doubled their seat count, and in any multiparty system it would not be described as a "decisive defeat", and it would give such party a strong bargaining position in the fight for alliances. That's what Democrats eventually did - wrestled control of junior parties.

Dems were ready to form their own coalition right after the elections, btw, should PPP's attempt fail. And they told that straight away, gentelmanly allowing PPP to have a go first. Of course PPP spokesmen presented it differently, and it apparently made a big impression on Parry and co, but the reality everntually caught up with them - PPP's coalition collapsed and the "victors" were left isolated.

"gentelmanly allowing PPP to have a go first"

You're seriously suggesting that the Democrats wouldn't have grabbed the opportunity to form the government with both hands if they had actually had the ability to muster the votes at the time - and only stood back out of gentlemanly courtesy: "No, no - please - after you......... " ? It's an old, old subject - but that's a new level of creativity.............

And, yes, I do "get" the factors involved in a multi-party system.

Edited March 17, 2009 by Steve2UK

[Oberkommando]

"Welcome to "Plusworld", folks. In case you hadn't noticed, they do things differently there...............".

I'm convinced he's a clever troll.

No-one could be so purposefully misinformed and no-one so consistent in providing misinformation and inaccuracies.

[hammered]

The Newin conundrum is interesting. Newin and Thaksin are now as unreconcilable enemies as you can get, so Abhisist on the one hand knows that Newin's primary aim is to wreck Thaksin and steal his politcal apparatus which is going along nicely and largely unreported right now. However, of course Newin's ultimate aim is to become PM and he has a good chance of achieving it. Abhisit will be aware of the challenge in the futurte but unable to do much about it. Newin too wont want Abhisit too succesful as that makes him too powerful an opponent in th efuture. However, Newin wont want to destroy the government too early. Then Newin has the ban. It may just be that Newin will see it as more to his advantage to see the ban out than pull a dodgy looking amnesty. That is an interesting call.

As discussed, we see things exactly the same (scary). The big question is, when Newin calls for a dissolution towards the end of the year, with his ban, who will he be setting up to take Abhisit's place?

Scary indeed. The word on the street is indeed towards the end of the year. Newin will pull the plug when he is certain he has as many PTP MPs guaranteed to join his party as he can possibly get or want, as some he will never accpet. Then BJT will look a bit like TRT without Thaksin. That is when Abhisit must worry. Right now humiliating PTP with a censure defeat and leaving an impotent Thaksin resorting to telephone calls while Newin takes 5 hour slots out on all Isaan community radio stations and doubles the salary of Kamnan and Headmen is worth continuing for a while longer, and quite a few of those PTP MPs are apparently looking very enviously at all the allowances BJT MPs get.

Who will get to be PM is an interesting question, but Newin is a master of politcal manouver so we can expect someone of better quality than Chalerm/Samak/Somchai.

Abhisit is also proving to have a lot more politcal savvy than many thought so it will be interesting to see how he plays this out. PTP a while ago were offering a new coalition deal. Very very unlikely to happen but in politics........ and Yuth "dooyen" used to be a Dem.

[Plus]

It's the gentleman's rule that the biggest party has a first chance at forming the government, nothing more. It's not written in the constitution.

It's not the Dems that lost the elections, it's Banharn and Snoh and a bunch of other minor parties. They were expected to win big in Isan and join Democrats instead of PPP. Unfortunately for Democrats they didn't deliver, and then made a complete turn around, competely discrediting themselves in the process, especially Snoh, former PAD leader.

If they could bring over a hundred seats to the table, the balance would have firmly shifted to Democrats.

All of that has completely escaped Parry's attention, even as regional editor or some such, he is supposed to be well versed in these matters. He isn't, and now doubling your MP count is labelled "decisive defeat". He shouldn't expose his igorance in public.

[Plus]

"Welcome to "Plusworld", folks. In case you hadn't noticed, they do things differently there...............".

I'm convinced he's a clever troll.

No-one could be so purposefully misinformed and no-one so consistent in providing misinformation and inaccuracies.

You can.

Thanks for resorting to personal abuse, both of you. Makes it clearer for me.