http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thai_general_election,_2007

Despite being the junta's target for suppression, the PPP managed to win 226 out of 480 of the MP seats, close to controlling the majority in the House of Representatives. The Democrat Party came in a distant second with 166 seats, Chart Thai 39, For the Motherland 26, Ruam Jai Thai Chat Pattana 10, the Neutral Democratic Party 7, and Pracharat 4.

I guess you will ask the Royal Police to censure also Wikipedia now.

Previously the number of votes has been discussed. In a constituency system, the number of parliamentary seats does frequently not mirror this:

/ Priceless

Can you see the link?

http://www.bangkokpost.com/news/local/1373...-speech-protest

Yes I can see whoever dares to speak against Abhisit gets menaced with jail by lese majeste charges.

What a convenient way to handle democracy

[/i]I guess you will ask the Royal Police to censure also Wikipedia now.

The percentages I gave match up exactly with the wiki link. The fact is, only a bit over 1/3 of the electorate supported Thaksin and the PPP. Anti Thaksin parties received an overwhelming majority of votes, and the new government is representative of that.

The easiest solution to prevent further problems would be a reformation of the election rules. A requirement for a candidate to get over 50% of the vote, by using a system of run off elections, would ensure that no Thaksinist party could ever come to power. This would prevent a massively unpopular government like the former PPP lead coalition from weaseling it's way in to power again.

That's not what i would expect from an Oxford graduate! It is really very disappointing.

[/i]I guess you will ask the Royal Police to censure also Wikipedia now.

The percentages I gave match up exactly with the wiki link. The fact is, only a bit over 1/3 of the electorate supported Thaksin and the PPP. Anti Thaksin parties received an overwhelming majority of votes, and the new government is representative of that.

The easiest solution to prevent further problems would be a reformation of the election rules. A requirement for a candidate to get over 50% of the vote, by using a system of run off elections, would ensure that no Thaksinist party could ever come to power. This would prevent a massively unpopular government like the former PPP lead coalition from weaseling it's way in to power again.

Why would you suggest to change the rules to ENSURE a Thaksinist party from coming to power? The former PPP government was democratically elected in a fair election. They were ousted by a coup. The anti Thaksin camp got the majority only after the court orders, the bans, the constitution changes and the defections.

Wasn't Thailand already a mess before Abhisit became PM?

The red shirts were robbed -- plain and simply.

Abshit was installed, not elected. Despite their name, this group of Thais never claimed to be democratic.

They are democratic if you only read their party name. If you watch what they have been doing, you will think opposite.

14 posts in and already complaining

If they have 300 posts, can they have the right to complain?

I could have sworn this thread was about Abhisit making a mess of Thailand. Unfortunately, the one-trick ponies always bring it back to Thaksin.

and they have total backing by the moderators who ban whoever dares to speak against their lies, in perfect lese majeste style

14 posts in and already complaining about the moderation? As for the Thaksin comment, let's see... Apart from him being mentioned in the linked story, making him extremely relevant to the thread, the first time his name is used is post #4, an anti Abhist post. You're so correct jumnien, the one trick Thaksin ponies sure do like to bring his name up.

Your diligence in the sphere of self-inquiry is less than inspiring.

[/i]I guess you will ask the Royal Police to censure also Wikipedia now.

The percentages I gave match up exactly with the wiki link. The fact is, only a bit over 1/3 of the electorate supported Thaksin and the PPP. Anti Thaksin parties received an overwhelming majority of votes, and the new government is representative of that.

The more you post, the more you make a fool of yourself.

If they were anti-Thaksin, why did they ally with Samak to form the government in first place ?

Why one of them got even disbanded by the EC ?

The fact they were later forced to ally with Abhisit at gunpoint can hardly be considered representative of an overwhelming anti-Thaksin majority of votes.

it would appear so from the report,

the transcript or video will surface soon then we will know for sure about his performance.

Basic transcript can be seen at:

http://rspas.anu.edu.au/rmap/newmandala/20...side/#more-4540

You tube clip can be seen at:

The removal of the previous elected PPP government by military coup and court orders as undemocratic also.

So you suggest that once someone is voted into office they can break the law, kill and steal from the people, change the rules to suit and profit themselves, and basically get away with doing whatever they feel like without there being any controlling mechanism? Your version of democracy is all too common on this forum, unfortunately for you, but fortunately for democracy, it's also wrong.

The answer is yes. They can and do, because they are empowerd to change laws. The rest they can do because they can get away with it. Things like blockading airports, ransaking governemt buildings, overthrowing governments, driving tanks round bangkok, blocking disent (post coup), rigging an election (and managing to lose it still!!!) then forcing out the winners to add but a few of the most recent ones.

Hope the allegations against Abhisit are not as heinous as the "appearing on a cookery program"

that they used against Samak!

As with most badly thought out posts, yours actually proves the opposite of what you are trying to prove.

At least the Thailand newbies (arrived since 1999) that cannot remember the times before Thaksin will get to see how a real party of self interest runs the country. The army buget was just upped to how much!

it would appear so from the report,

the transcript or video will surface soon then we will know for sure about his performance.

Basic transcript can be seen at:

http://rspas.anu.edu.au/rmap/newmandala/20...side/#more-4540

You tube clip can be seen at:

THANK YOU

14 posts in and already complaining

If they have 300 posts, can they have the right to complain?

Cutting other people's quotes mid sentence is not smart, it's actually a lowdown thing to do. I'm sure I could cut away at your posts and, without changing a word, make it look like you're the biggest Thaksin hater on TV, but I wouldn't stoop so low, and can't be bothered anyhow. I was making the point that, after only 14 posts, he was complaining about the moderation of the forum. It's almost as if he has experienced being banned. There are steps to take if you disagree with the moderation here, ranting about it in a post is not one of them.

The removal of the previous elected PPP government by military coup and court orders as undemocratic also.

So you suggest that once someone is voted into office they can break the law, kill and steal from the people, change the rules to suit and profit themselves, and basically get away with doing whatever they feel like without there being any controlling mechanism? Your version of democracy is all too common on this forum, unfortunately for you, but fortunately for democracy, it's also wrong.

The answer is yes. They can and do, because they are empowerd to change laws. The rest they can do because they can get away with it. Things like blockading airports, ransaking governemt buildings, overthrowing governments, driving tanks round bangkok, blocking disent (post coup), rigging an election (and managing to lose it still!!!) then forcing out the winners to add but a few of the most recent ones.

Hope the allegations against Abhisit are not as heinous as the "appearing on a cookery program"

that they used against Samak!

As with most badly thought out posts, yours actually proves the opposite of what you are trying to prove.

At least the Thailand newbies (arrived since 1999) that cannot remember the times before Thaksin will get to see how a real party of self interest runs the country. The army buget was just upped to how much!

Who mentioned Samak, Abhisit or Thaksin? I was replying to the observation that "the removal of the previously elected PPP government by military coup and court orders as undemocratic" (sic). The key point is "court orders", if he only mentioned military coup I wouldn't have argued, (although the PPP were not removed by a coup, so his initial statement is incorrect). I merely listed a set of circumstances in which the judiciary would be obligated to legally remove a democratically elected leader by court order (In the west, Richard Nixon springs to mind). The fact that this list just happens to read like a charge sheet against Thaksin is purely coincidental. It makes you think though, just how long would he have lasted as PM in a true democracy? My guess is, he never would have made it through the door in the first place.