Red Shirts To March On Bangkok Streets Again

[ballpoint]

I agree they are pissed. But their anger is misdirected. If I voted for my favorite candidate and my favorite party and they were later found to have been guilty of massive electoral fraud I would not be angry at the courts or the opposition. I would be angry at my own party whose leaders subverted the democratic process and engaged in criminal actions. But you don't see any of that kind of reaction from any redshirt. There have been no calls by redshirts to clean up their own act and engage in honest campaigning or governance.

How many of those protesting have also accepted money for their votes? I'd say quite a few. How many of those protesting have accepted money to be there? I know for a fact quite a few. They're in the ridiculous situation of calling for clean politics when they're a large part of the problem.

An another point, you mention how new elections should have been held. But again there was no constitutional requirement for this. You are calling for new elections but your arguments revolve around amending the constitution. These are not the same thing. I would argue that disbanding the current legal government at this point, due to mobs on the streets, would subvert the cause of democracy just as surely as the coup did.

Precisely. The very same people on here complaining that Thaksin should have been removed legally, rather than by a coup, are those here now complaining that a small percentage of the population have the right to remove the current PM from office.

This whole argument has gone around in circles ever since December 2008. One can argue all one likes, but until the fact that the current situation is ultimately down to one man, Thaksin, is acknowleged, little progress will be made. When the PPP formed a coalition in 2007 there were groans from some. The fact that the CTP, in particular, had reneged on a promise not to join them in government was pointed out. But, there was no street protest. That came only after the PPP started manoeuvring to pardon Thaksin and bring him back. On to last Songkran: No protest until Thaksin called for a revolution. On to this year: No protest until Thaksin's assets case verdict was delivered. Thaksin is financing the show, directing the show, running the show, he is the show. And, from todays news updates:

"The red-shirt leaders must think it through in shaping their demands - if they want the House dissolived, this is not related to Thaksin at all or if they want to discuss Thaksin's issues, then the government might not be in a position to negotiate," he said.

Korbsak voiced optimism for talks to happen eventually despite several failed attempts.

On Monday, Thaksin's brother Payap Shinawatra floated an idea that he could be a go-between to arrange the negotiations between the government and Thaksin in order to end the street protests by the red shirts.

Payap said the political predicament would dissipate if the government agrees not to put Thaksin in jail if he returns from his exile.

The government is saying drop Thaksin and you will have a better chance of getting the house dissolved. The reds say no. Thaksin's brother is saying negotiate with Thaksin and it will all be over. How much clearer do all the "it's not about Thaksin" brigade want things to be made? It is all about one greedy criminal getting his freedom, money and power back.

[moresomekl]

Well anyway. It is one great big show for now. It ranges from tedious to titillating on a daily basis. We are all just observers, but following events makes an interesting diversion. Thais will sort it out in the Thai way. Hopefully it doesn't get too violent.

Yes i hope so too . But its inherently dangerous you know , someone could loose his nerves , the more so if it last too long .

[anotherpeter]

Yes about the french presidents only whose mandate do not depend on the parliament flavour , but no in the UK its too risky , so i assume that when Churchill f.e called for early election in 1945 it was a genuine democratic act ... and he lost . Usually in UK or France when they do that they loose , history has shown . But in Thailand its really a big shake up to disolve a party with nearly the absolute majority , nearly all foreign press agree that Mr Abhasit came in power by some parliament trick rather then by an election .

No. All the red supporters think that Abhisit came to power by some parliament trick rather than by an election. That's because they don't understand the democratic systems.

All the foreign press know how the parliament system works. So they know that after the PPP were disbanded and most of the ex-PPP MPs moved to other parties, the Democrats were able to form a coalition government with the smaller parties.

It was still the same number of MPs involved. Just some of the of the smaller parties decided they didn't want to be in coalition with Peau Thai (where most of the PPP MPs went), so formed a coalition with the Democrats instead.

It's no trick. It's how the PPP came to power. Get a majority of the MPs together. Form a government.

[Samuian]

................edit to shorten...

The government is saying drop Thaksin and you will have a better chance of getting the house dissolved. The reds say no. Thaksin's brother is saying negotiate with Thaksin and it will all be over. How much clearer do all the "it's not about Thaksin" brigade want things to be made? It is all about one greedy criminal getting his freedom, money and power back.

As I wrote many times it's far from over, it's a lot of money, a giant ego, many other profiteers involved, much power... "He won't stop at nothing"...it all may just begin... here is loads of trouble ahead, unless this man is stopped!

Negotiations, will result in more demands, compromising any genuine effort to rid this country of it menace!

The wrestling just begun!

[animatic]

To get elections they will have to exert all osrts of pressure while negotiatiting for them or they wont happen. Be interesting to see what fireworks are in store to back up the big push

Thaksin needs something to happen now he is pulling in all the favours etc

It seems evolution is out and revolution is in favor a Thaksin Manor.

Defined in psychological terms,

a fanatic is a man who consciously over-compensates a secret doubt.

Aldous Huxley

The psychoanalysis of neurotics has taught us to recognize

the intimate connection between wetting the bed and the character trait of ambition.

Sigmund Freud

Well it 'Depends' / 'Certainly')

Edited March 23, 2010 by animatic

[moresomekl]

Yes about the french presidents only whose mandate do not depend on the parliament flavour , but no in the UK its too risky , so i assume that when Churchill f.e called for early election in 1945 it was a genuine democratic act ... and he lost . Usually in UK or France when they do that they loose , history has shown . But in Thailand its really a big shake up to disolve a party with nearly the absolute majority , nearly all foreign press agree that Mr Abhasit came in power by some parliament trick rather then by an election .

No. All the red supporters think that Abhisit came to power by some parliament trick rather than by an election. That's because they don't understand the democratic systems.

All the foreign press know how the parliament system works. So they know that after the PPP were disbanded and most of the ex-PPP MPs moved to other parties, the Democrats were able to form a coalition government with the smaller parties.

It was still the same number of MPs involved. Just some of the of the smaller parties decided they didn't want to be in coalition with Peau Thai (where most of the PPP MPs went), so formed a coalition with the Democrats instead.

It's no trick. It's how the PPP came to power. Get a majority of the MPs together. Form a government.

Ok i can search for the articles in the foreign press if you dont believe me ...

Courts can disbande a governement , but elections have to be held after that else

its the judiciary that decide the governement .

Anyway i dont think we can agree , please forget it

[way2muchcoffee]

Ok i can search for the articles in the foreign press if you dont believe me ...

Courts can disbande a governement , but elections have to be held after that else

its the judiciary that decide the governement .

Anyway i dont think we can agree , please forget it

How is it that the judiciary decided the government? The PTP had a few less MPs, but still led in the plurality. They had every opportunity to form the new government. They needed coalition partners to do so. The coalition partners opted to go with the 2nd largest plurality party. If new elections were held it is very likely that no party would hold an absolute majority. A coalition government will almost certainly be necessary. So why is it okay for a coalition government to be formed immediately after an election, but not later?

[animatic]

Yes about the french presidents only whose mandate do not depend on the parliament flavour , but no in the UK its too risky , so i assume that when Churchill f.e called for early election in 1945 it was a genuine democratic act ... and he lost . Usually in UK or France when they do that they loose , history has shown . But in Thailand its really a big shake up to disolve a party with nearly the absolute majority , nearly all foreign press agree that Mr Abhasit came in power by some parliament trick rather then by an election .

No. All the red supporters think that Abhisit came to power by some parliament trick rather than by an election. That's because they don't understand the democratic systems.

All the foreign press know how the parliament system works. So they know that after the PPP were disbanded and most of the ex-PPP MPs moved to other parties, the Democrats were able to form a coalition government with the smaller parties.

It was still the same number of MPs involved. Just some of the of the smaller parties decided they didn't want to be in coalition with Peau Thai (where most of the PPP MPs went), so formed a coalition with the Democrats instead.

It's no trick. It's how the PPP came to power. Get a majority of the MPs together. Form a government.

Ok i can search for the articles in the foreign press if you dont believe me ...

Courts can disbande a governement , but elections have to be held after that else

its the judiciary that decide the governement .

Anyway i dont think we can agree , please forget it

It only matters under Thai law.

Plus the courts didn't disband a government,

their party was disbanded,

and their individual rights to hold office rescinded for election infractions as a group.

and so they were forced to resign.

The courts never actually said a word about the government.

The EXACT SAME THING HAPPENED TO OTHER PARTIES,

but since none of their members were PM then it didn't matter.

And no one is winging on about them are they? Just THAKSINS puppets

and the 'Great Pretender To The Thrown' Shinawatra himself.

You can argue this till the heavens ring, but if there WAS a valid legal argument

PTP would have long since made it in court, and they quite obviously have not.

[anotherpeter]

Ok i can search for the articles in the foreign press if you dont believe me ...

Courts can disbande a governement , but elections have to be held after that else

its the judiciary that decide the governement .

Anyway i dont think we can agree , please forget it

Yes ... please find the articles. I would be very interested in the foreign press' take on that situation.

I don't know if the courts can "disband a government". In this case, they banned a couple of MPs.

Correct. I can't agree with you unless I see some convincing *evidence* of what you are arguing.

For your reference, here are a couple of wiki links that describe what happened around the time that the PPP was disbanded:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Po...%29#Dissolution

(note the statement that says: "MPs from the Chart Thai and Matchima parties announced that they would stick with MPs from the PPP party in forming a new government")

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abhisit_Vejja..._to_Premiership

[moresomekl]

Ok i can search for the articles in the foreign press if you dont believe me ...

Courts can disbande a governement , but elections have to be held after that else

its the judiciary that decide the governement .

Anyway i dont think we can agree , please forget it

How is it that the judiciary decided the government? The PTP had a few less MPs, but still led in the plurality. They had every opportunity to form the new government. They needed coalition partners to do so. The coalition partners opted to go with the 2nd largest plurality party. If new elections were held it is very likely that no party would hold an absolute majority. A coalition government will almost certainly be necessary. So why is it okay for a coalition government to be formed immediately after an election, but not later?

PPP had 223 MPs , PTP has 189 MPs . that is not a few less . Anyway ...

Thats my point if coalition partners switch side to another party that was before in the opposition

in a democratic system an election should be held to decide if the majority of the people agree with the new

setup .

Else you could have governements fall and reborn every ten days with totally different

programs and agenda without any control from the people . That does not stand the logic

of what is democratic .

[way2muchcoffee]

PPP had 223 MPs , PTP has 189 MPs . that is not a few less . Anyway ...

Thats my point if coalition partners switch side to another party that was before in the opposition

in a democratic system an election should be held to decide if the majority of the people agree with the new

setup .

Else you could have governements fall and reborn every ten days with totally different

programs and agenda without any control from the people . That does not stand the logic

of what is democratic .

What if a smaller party switches sides after the election despite campaign promises to the contrary? Should new elections be called? How is this different? Does an MP not continue to represent his constituency even when he switches political alliances? What if he believes that his constituents are better off in making a switch, should he be prevented from doing so? I don't think it is so clear cut. I understand what you are saying and your arguments are not without merit. I really don't know if there is a right answer. I guess nations set up the rules that they think are best, and then follow them.

Remember in a representative system the voters vote for the person they think will represent them the best. That person then makes decisions on behalf of his constituents. This is not really democratic either, but that is the system used in all democratic governments.

Edited March 23, 2010 by way2muchcoffee

[anotherpeter]

PPP had 223 MPs , PTP has 189 MPs . that is not a few less . Anyway ...

Thats my point if coalition partners switch side to another party that was before in the opposition

in a democratic system an election should be held to decide if the majority of the people agree with the new

setup .

Else you could have governements fall and reborn every ten days with totally different

programs and agenda without any control from the people . That does not stand the logic

of what is democratic .

Not all PPP MPs went to Peau Thai.

You could have governments fall and be reborn every 10 days.

But what you're suggesting is having elections every 10 days instead. Is that logical?

In reality, MPs do change parties very rarely and parties change coalition partners very rarely. But the system allows it.

In Australia, members of the government (or coalition gov.) will vote against legislation that the government has tabled. That is the same as changing sides, but it is only for a particular piece of legislation. But there is nothing from stopping them from changing permenantly.

There is nothing wrong with them doing that. They are doing what they think the people that voted for them want. And it doesn't require new elections.

[ratcatcher]

To get elections they will have to exert all osrts of pressure while negotiatiting for them or they wont happen. Be interesting to see what fireworks are in store to back up the big push

Thaksin needs something to happen now he is pulling in all the favours etc

It seems evolution is out and revolution is in favor a Thaksin Manor.

Defined in psychological terms,

a fanatic is a man who consciously over-compensates a secret doubt.

Aldous Huxley

The psychoanalysis of neurotics has taught us to recognize

the intimate connection between wetting the bed and the character trait of ambition.

Sigmund Freud

Well it 'Depends' / 'Certainly')

Is it just me or was this a genuine Freudian slip?

[bulmercke]

................edit to shorten...

The government is saying drop Thaksin and you will have a better chance of getting the house dissolved. The reds say no. Thaksin's brother is saying negotiate with Thaksin and it will all be over. How much clearer do all the "it's not about Thaksin" brigade want things to be made? It is all about one greedy criminal getting his freedom, money and power back.

As I wrote many times it's far from over, it's a lot of money, a giant ego, many other profiteers involved, much power... "He won't stop at nothing"...it all may just begin... here is loads of trouble ahead, unless this man is stopped!

Negotiations, will result in more demands, compromising any genuine effort to rid this country of it menace!

The wrestling just begun!

A good analogy at the moment is that you (the government) live in an old - rickety - wooden house with large gaps between the worn floor boards. Below that house is the fattest - most vicious - and dangerous poisonous snake (Thaksin) you could ever imagine - likely at any moment to lunge up through the floor boards and gobble you up.

I too would be teetering around with fear.

[Old Man River]

Ok i can search for the articles in the foreign press if you dont believe me ...

Courts can disbande a governement , but elections have to be held after that else

its the judiciary that decide the governement .

Anyway i dont think we can agree , please forget it

How is it that the judiciary decided the government? The PTP had a few less MPs, but still led in the plurality. They had every opportunity to form the new government. They needed coalition partners to do so. The coalition partners opted to go with the 2nd largest plurality party. If new elections were held it is very likely that no party would hold an absolute majority. A coalition government will almost certainly be necessary. So why is it okay for a coalition government to be formed immediately after an election, but not later?

PPP had 223 MPs , PTP has 189 MPs . that is not a few less . Anyway ...

Thats my point if coalition partners switch side to another party that was before in the opposition

in a democratic system an election should be held to decide if the majority of the people agree with the new

setup.

That is not the way it works. Are you suggesting a New Politics changing the way democracy works in Thailand to what you want?

[moresomekl]

Ok i can search for the articles in the foreign press if you dont believe me ...

Courts can disbande a governement , but elections have to be held after that else

its the judiciary that decide the governement .

Anyway i dont think we can agree , please forget it

Yes ... please find the articles. I would be very interested in the foreign press' take on that situation.

I don't know if the courts can "disband a government". In this case, they banned a couple of MPs.

Correct. I can't agree with you unless I see some convincing *evidence* of what you are arguing.

For your reference, here are a couple of wiki links that describe what happened around the time that the PPP was disbanded:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Po...%29#Dissolution

(note the statement that says: "MPs from the Chart Thai and Matchima parties announced that they would stick with MPs from the PPP party in forming a new government")

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abhisit_Vejja..._to_Premiership

Looking for it . Was few days ago in the BBC

[ballpoint]

A good analogy at the moment is that you (the government) live in an old - rickety - wooden house with large gaps between the worn floor boards. Below that house is the fattest - most vicious - and dangerous poisonous snake (Thaksin) you could ever imagine - likely at any moment to lunge up through the floor boards and gobble you up.

I too would be teetering around with fear.

You can totter about all you like. I would be killing the snake. And then when the danger is gone, setting out to build a better house.

Edited March 23, 2010 by ballpoint

[Jerrytheyoung]

A good analogy at the moment is that you (the government) live in an old - rickety - wooden house with large gaps between the worn floor boards. Below that house is the fattest - most vicious - and dangerous poisonous snake (Thaksin) you could ever imagine - likely at any moment to lunge up through the floor boards and gobble you up.

I too would be teetering around with fear.

You can totter about all you like. I would be killing the snake. And then when the danger is gone, setting out to build a better house.

But usually snakes fall from the roof ....because they were chasing rats in the attic

[moresomekl]

PPP had 223 MPs , PTP has 189 MPs . that is not a few less . Anyway ...

Thats my point if coalition partners switch side to another party that was before in the opposition

in a democratic system an election should be held to decide if the majority of the people agree with the new

setup .

Else you could have governements fall and reborn every ten days with totally different

programs and agenda without any control from the people . That does not stand the logic

of what is democratic .

Not all PPP MPs went to Peau Thai.

You could have governments fall and be reborn every 10 days.

But what you're suggesting is having elections every 10 days instead. Is that logical?

In reality, MPs do change parties very rarely and parties change coalition partners very rarely. But the system allows it.

In Australia, members of the government (or coalition gov.) will vote against legislation that the government has tabled. That is the same as changing sides, but it is only for a particular piece of legislation. But there is nothing from stopping them from changing permenantly.

There is nothing wrong with them doing that. They are doing what they think the people that voted for them want. And it doesn't require new elections.

I said COULD , not WILL . Please ... .

Yes everywhere in the wolrld is like Australia , a MP can disagree with his party on some particular piece

of legislation and vote against it . Why not ? Here it is not the same case .

[moresomekl]

Precisely. The very same people on here complaining that Thaksin should have been removed legally, rather than by a coup, are those here now complaining that a small percentage of the population have the right to remove the current PM from office.

THats the all point . How do you know if its a small percentage of the population if you dont have elections ?

[frodo]

A UDD website is continually reporting that soldiers have been "tightening the red shirts stage." This within the past 25 minutes.

Can't verify this, but again from one of their sites, that "300 soldiers occupied the Parliament without the House Speaker's knowledge preventing MPs from coming in the building. Pueathai Party has just announced!"

Don't know if it's just reactionisms from UDD or more propaganda to entice people people to come and support the red cause.

[moresomekl]

Alright to close the subject

I never said that Mr Abhisit governement is illegal (please see in this forum post 117) . On the contrary i said it is legal .

I also said that in view of Mr Abhisit accession to power , as a result of the dissolution of a very major party , in fact a party

the PPP with almost the absolute majority 223 seats versus 240 seats at the time , it is not democratic not to call

for an election . Its a matter of principle really because its a huge shake up . Definitely Mr Abhisit do not have to call for

an election legally speaking yet i doubt that he can bring a lasting solution to the crisis if he dont .

There is unfortunately no precedent in such situation that i could find in the UK or any parliementary democracy .

It only happens in Thailand

Not related to above , yes the judiciary can bring down a chief of governement that is very rare . See for example Nixon in the 70s .

Then there was a new general election but its a presidential system

Edited March 23, 2010 by moresomekl

[ballpoint]

Precisely. The very same people on here complaining that Thaksin should have been removed legally, rather than by a coup, are those here now complaining that a small percentage of the population have the right to remove the current PM from office.

THats the all point . How do you know if its a small percentage of the population if you dont have elections ?

In any democracy there will be a time when a certain portion of the electorate, and it may well be a majority, don't like the current government. That doesn't mean that the government must call an election just to suit them, again, even if they are bottom of the approval ratings. The fact that only around a 10th of the numbers promised actually showed up, and the promised number itself was a minority of the electorate, is true. The fact that nowhere near a majority of Bangkok residents went near the rally is also true, as is the fact that many of the protestors there have been paid to do so. Anything else regarding the true numbers of red supporters is mere speculation. Again though, even if the vast majority does not currently support Abhisit, there is nothing in any democratic constitution to say he must call elections. He must do so before his mandate is up (late next year). He could be removed if he were proved to be corrupt. He could be removed if his party were found to have cheated. He could be removed if the minority partners change sides. If he does a Thaksin and clings to power after his mandate is exhausted, you will see me on here shouting for him to step down or be removed. However, he is currently under no obligation to call an election just to see how much support the reds actually have, nor because a bunch of posters on TV, who have proved they have no real knowledge of how the Thai political system works, say he should do so.

Are you aware that there is an online petition calling for Gordon Brown to step down, and for Queen Elizabeth to dissolve the UK parlliament if he doesn't? There are obviously many who don't want him as PM, who feel he shouldn't have been allowed to take over Tony Blair's mandate. If the opinion polls are to be trusted, the majority of the UK voters would rather see the Conservatives in power. Do you think he should resign and call elections because of that? Apparently, many do, but, just like Abhisit, there is nothing to legally force him to do so, and they will each call elections when they are ready to.

Ironically, I firmly believe that the reds themselves hold the key to the timing of the next election. If they can cast off Thaksin, promise to allow campaigning by all sides in all regions, report vote buying and attempts at intimidation, and promise to accept the results I wouldn't bet against elections sooner rather than later. And I wouldn't bet against the same governing coalition. Sadly, I think the vast majority of the reds in Bangkok will go back to their villages, accept money for their votes, and carry on voting for the same rotten politicians who have been keeping them uneducated, in debt and ripped off for decades.

[animatic]

To get elections they will have to exert all osrts of pressure while negotiatiting for them or they wont happen. Be interesting to see what fireworks are in store to back up the big push

Thaksin needs something to happen now he is pulling in all the favours etc

It seems evolution is out and revolution is in favor a Thaksin Manor.

Defined in psychological terms,

a fanatic is a man who consciously over-compensates a secret doubt.

Aldous Huxley

The psychoanalysis of neurotics has taught us to recognize

the intimate connection between wetting the bed and the character trait of ambition.

Sigmund Freud

Well it 'Depends' / 'Certainly')

Is it just me or was this a genuine Freudian slip?

Or more a katoey slip left over a a boyfriends house... Certainly!

http://www.adshealthcareproducts.com.sg/pi...s_certainty.jpg

[bulmercke]

A UDD website is continually reporting that soldiers have been "tightening the red shirts stage." This within the past 25 minutes.

Can't verify this, but again from one of their sites, that "300 soldiers occupied the Parliament without the House Speaker's knowledge preventing MPs from coming in the building. Pueathai Party has just announced!"

Don't know if it's just reactionisms from UDD or more propaganda to entice people people to come and support the red cause.

Interesting. "A UDD website is continually reporting that soldiers have been "tightening the red shirts stage.""

Moving in closer? For what purpose? Also the unannouced occupation of Parliament House. I wonder if these military manoeuvres are a prelude to something bigger. A coup tonight?

[animatic]

Precisely. The very same people on here complaining that Thaksin should have been removed legally, rather than by a coup, are those here now complaining that a small percentage of the population have the right to remove the current PM from office.

THats the all point . How do you know if its a small percentage of the population if you dont have elections ?

The point really is that the ELECTION HAS BEEN HELD....

What happens in the intervening time if one minority group or another

can or can't make a coalition work, is a shifting of the 'Ministerial Pieces'

until either

a ) a new coalition makes a viable government ( we're there)

or

b ) no coalition is delivered and THEN a new election must be called. ( avoided)

or

c ) The government in power decides for IT'S OWN REASONS, to call a snap election. ( As Thaksin did in 2006)

There is nothing anywhere to state a fallen government of 2 large parties,

being replaced by 10 smaller parties in a working coalition is illegitimate.

A MAJORITY OF MPs is the requirement.

Not of the fewest parties to do it.

Sometimes a coalition is ONE human being in the plus column and that person dies,

the cabinet falls and in the interim before the by election the ability to remake partnerships

in a coalition is opened up and this either works for the fallen cabinets party or it doesn't.

Just because your team HAD a majority coalition,

doesn't mean you are the ONLY one that can form a government.

In fact , if your opposition can announce an official coalition before your team,

in this situation, they can take the cabinet. The biggest vote getter HAS then

had their chance, and blew it, for what ever reason.

This is the WHOLE POINT OF THIS MECHANISM... to NOT have to call

expensive and time consuming elections of MINISTERS OF PARLIAMENT,

any time a cabinet falls.

This is the EXACT REASON this is in the laws, to prevent the necessity of

expensive elections, and campaign costs, every 3 months.

So really, the number of times this has been stated, and restated, and explained

in detail with references aides, to the uncomprehending here, is astounding,

so one must assume attitudinal myopia. Political tunnel vision or blinkered thinking

is the only explanation...

Certainly not a valid reading of the laws of the land can account for this.

Now getting down to it ONE PERSON, is primarily responsible for the current mess we are in.

Thaksin Shinawatra called an unneccesary 'Snap Election' in 2006, for his OWN REASONS,

and the country has had problems EVER SINCE... if we want to get angry

lets LOOK AT THE SOURCE!

Edited March 23, 2010 by animatic

[frodo]

A UDD website is continually reporting that soldiers have been "tightening the red shirts stage." This within the past 25 minutes.

Can't verify this, but again from one of their sites, that "300 soldiers occupied the Parliament without the House Speaker's knowledge preventing MPs from coming in the building. Pueathai Party has just announced!"

Don't know if it's just reactionisms from UDD or more propaganda to entice people people to come and support the red cause.

Interesting. "A UDD website is continually reporting that soldiers have been "tightening the red shirts stage.""

Moving in closer? For what purpose? Also the unannouced occupation of Parliament House. I wonder if these military manoeuvres are a prelude to something bigger. A coup tonight?

I'm not sure. According to this site, they (UDD) have been contacting foreign media such as the BBC, CNN, etc. They are twittering Bangkokians to come and help them since they feel they are now in danger from the military (about a minute ago). Reactionaries? Propaganda? I'm not sure.

[bulmercke]

A UDD website is continually reporting that soldiers have been "tightening the red shirts stage." This within the past 25 minutes.

Can't verify this, but again from one of their sites, that "300 soldiers occupied the Parliament without the House Speaker's knowledge preventing MPs from coming in the building. Pueathai Party has just announced!"

Don't know if it's just reactionisms from UDD or more propaganda to entice people people to come and support the red cause.

Interesting. "A UDD website is continually reporting that soldiers have been "tightening the red shirts stage.""

Moving in closer? For what purpose? Also the unannouced occupation of Parliament House. I wonder if these military manoeuvres are a prelude to something bigger. A coup tonight?

I'm not sure. According to this site, they (UDD) have been contacting foreign media such as the BBC, CNN, etc. They are twittering Bangkokians to come and help them since they feel they are now in danger from the military (about a minute ago). Reactionaries? Propaganda? I'm not sure.

For sure the military's going to crackdown on the Red-Shirts. It's goin' to really kick-off very soon.

A coup. Very much on the cards some time tonight.

MPs unaware of developments and prevented from goin' about their business. Speaks volumes about who's really in charge of things!

Edited March 23, 2010 by bulmercke

[ballpoint]

A good analogy at the moment is that you (the government) live in an old - rickety - wooden house with large gaps between the worn floor boards. Below that house is the fattest - most vicious - and dangerous poisonous snake (Thaksin) you could ever imagine - likely at any moment to lunge up through the floor boards and gobble you up.

I too would be teetering around with fear.

You can totter about all you like. I would be killing the snake. And then when the danger is gone, setting out to build a better house.

But usually snakes fall from the roof ....because they were chasing rats in the attic

In this case, the rats have linked with the snake, actually bringing it into the house in order to try and chase the occupant away. They forget that once it gets what it wants it will devour them.

[moresomekl]

Precisely. The very same people on here complaining that Thaksin should have been removed legally, rather than by a coup, are those here now complaining that a small percentage of the population have the right to remove the current PM from office.

THats the all point . How do you know if its a small percentage of the population if you dont have elections ?

In any democracy there will be a time when a certain portion of the electorate, and it may well be a majority, don't like the current government. That doesn't mean that the government must call an election just to suit them, again, even if they are bottom of the approval ratings. The fact that only around a 10th of the numbers promised actually showed up, and the promised number itself was a minority of the electorate, is true. The fact that nowhere near a majority of Bangkok residents went near the rally is also true, as is the fact that many of the protestors there have been paid to do so. Anything else regarding the true numbers of red supporters is mere speculation. Again though, even if the vast majority does not currently support Abhisit, there is nothing in any democratic constitution to say he must call elections. He must do so before his mandate is up (late next year). He could be removed if he were proved to be corrupt. He could be removed if his party were found to have cheated. He could be removed if the minority partners change sides. If he does a Thaksin and clings to power after his mandate is exhausted, you will see me on here shouting for him to step down or be removed. However, he is currently under no obligation to call an election just to see how much support the reds actually have, nor because a bunch of posters on TV, who have proved they have no real knowledge of how the Thai political system works, say he should do so.

Are you aware that there is an online petition calling for Gordon Brown to step down, and for Queen Elizabeth to dissolve the UK parlliament if he doesn't? There are obviously many who don't want him as PM, who feel he shouldn't have been allowed to take over Tony Blair's mandate. If the opinion polls are to be trusted, the majority of the UK voters would rather see the Conservatives in power. Do you think he should resign and call elections because of that? Apparently, many do, but, just like Abhisit, there is nothing to legally force him to do so, and they will each call elections when they are ready to.

Ironically, I firmly believe that the reds themselves hold the key to the timing of the next election. If they can cast off Thaksin, promise to allow campaigning by all sides in all regions, report vote buying and attempts at intimidation, and promise to accept the results I wouldn't bet against elections sooner rather than later. And I wouldn't bet against the same governing coalition. Sadly, I think the vast majority of the reds in Bangkok will go back to their villages, accept money for their votes, and carry on voting for the same rotten politicians who have been keeping them uneducated, in debt and ripped off for decades.

I do agree with all that yu say actually . Except that its hard to judge who is against Mr Abhisit based on the red protests .

That Mr Abhisit dont have legally to call for early elections is clear .

Heard about the Gordon Brown issue but really in that case its a matter of person rather then party in power , i do not have an opinion .

I think that if labour was disolved because of whatever and reconstitued into a new labour party , and in the mean time conservatives gained power by allying themselves with small parties (liberals f.e) then i think the conservatives would call for a general election to confirm with the people . If they dont all voters from the now defunct labour party would be in the street protesting . You dont think so?

Yes i concurr with you on what you say about the reds . But how do you know PTP would not win or form a coalition ?

Anyway let see when there is an election .

Edited March 23, 2010 by moresomekl