Red Shirts To March On Bangkok Streets Again

[animatic]

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 sometime tonight.

There is no logical reason for a government side coup,

and since the army and the government are clearly acting on the same page,

there is even less reason for a coup in any form.

That they reach around their rally site is getting more constricted makes sense.

There are much less of them and thereis no reason that neighborhoods residents

must be inconvenienced over an area suitable for 100k when only 20k are there.

Of course the continual derangement of the public by the reds wide ranging protests

is designed for forcing a 'public safety measure' of restricting them to their main protest site

and not anywhere they feel like will cause problems.

Sop being as there is a naturally occurring us against them group paranoia from the top down in the Red ranks,

it's not surprising that they are begging for help and witnesses for the 'theoretical brutality'

that 'some of their leaders' need to make a political change of playing field.

With out this change in dynamic the reds are stalemated and well done at that.

[Nuchanart]

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-Pacifi...ailand-protests

Beware what you hear / see from state media.

[animatic]

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

But they did not have an absolute majority, and most of their MPs are still on the job.

PPP also knew it was caught red handed and going down.

They created their successor party PTP and started moving their players there,

even before their actual dissolution. Enough in advance to run in a possible election,

but they were rather surprised when partners, realizing they were a spent shell,

abandoned the sinking ship and went to batter pastures.

Look to Israel for those precedents you are searching for.

[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 ?

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!

Alright fine . Its everyday that a party in power is disbanded .

Yes Thaksin is at the source

However had Mr Abhisit called for early election ,(not now) , I hardly can see

what argument his supporters possibly could have had .

Thaksin would be history by now , dead and burried politically .

[ballpoint]

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 .

I have no idea who will govern after the next election. I do believe that anyone who declares the PTP will romp home is extremely foolish, which should tell you what I think about all these quoted "experts" in the foreign media who state that Thaksin would certainly win if he were allowed back. (To balance things up, I also believe that anyone who predicts the Democrats will romp home is just as daft). As I said, I wouldn't bet against the same coalition as we have now. I also believe that, once again, no single party will have a majority. I believe that the PTP and the Democrats will be roughly equal in seats, and it will be up to the smaller parties to decide. Who they choose is up to them, but it would be interesting to see if they actually declare who they support prior to the election. Should the Democrats be seen to be doing a good job at the time I see no reason for the Chart Thai Pattana and BJT parties to leave, but they will probably go where the money is. I base these conclusions on observing every election since the end of the Prem government in 1988. Bangkok voters will tend to pick and choose their candidate, rural ones will tend to vote for the same cabals as always, and I can't see that changing right now. Even at the height of Thaksin's popularity, he had to rely on buying out these family dynasties, and their proxies, in order to get his hands on the NE. Who controls them controls the government.

[bulmercke]

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 sometime tonight.

There is no logical reason for a government side coup,

and since the army and the government are clearly acting on the same page,

there is even less reason for a coup in any form.

That they reach around their rally site is getting more constricted makes sense.

There are much less of them and thereis no reason that neighborhoods residents

must be inconvenienced over an area suitable for 100k when only 20k are there.

Of course the continual derangement of the public by the reds wide ranging protests

is designed for forcing a 'public safety measure' of restricting them to their main protest site

and not anywhere they feel like will cause problems.

Sop being as there is a naturally occurring us against them group paranoia from the top down in the Red ranks,

it's not surprising that they are begging for help and witnesses for the 'theoretical brutality'

that 'some of their leaders' need to make a political change of playing field.

With out this change in dynamic the reds are stalemated and well done at that.

QUOTE:"....and since the army and the government are clearly acting on the same page"

"MPs unaware of developments and prevented from goin' about their business." (Unannouced occupation of Parliament House earlier. )

Please explain the apparent contradiction.

[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

But they did not have an absolute majority, and most of their MPs are still on the job.

PPP also knew it was caught red handed and going down.

They created their successor party PTP and started moving their players there,

even before their actual dissolution. Enough in advance to run in a possible election,

but they were rather surprised when partners, realizing they were a spent shell,

abandoned the sinking ship and went to batter pastures.

Look to Israel for those precedents you are searching for.

Ok , alright .

[way2muchcoffee]

"MPs unaware of developments and prevented from goin' about their business." (Unannouced occupation of Parliament House earlier. )

Do you have a legitimate source for this? Is there any confirmation to what you are saying?

Edited March 23, 2010 by way2muchcoffee

[moresomekl]

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 .

I have no idea who will govern after the next election. I do believe that anyone who declares the PTP will romp home is extremely foolish, which should tell you what I think about all these quoted "experts" in the foreign media who state that Thaksin would certainly win if he were allowed back. (To balance things up, I also believe that anyone who predicts the Democrats will romp home is just as daft). As I said, I wouldn't bet against the same coalition as we have now. I also believe that, once again, no single party will have a majority. I believe that the PTP and the Democrats will be roughly equal in seats, and it will be up to the smaller parties to decide. Who they choose is up to them, but it would be interesting to see if they actually declare who they support prior to the election. Should the Democrats be seen to be doing a good job at the time I see no reason for the Chart Thai Pattana and BJT parties to leave, but they will probably go where the money is. I base these conclusions on observing every election since the end of the Prem government in 1988. Bangkok voters will tend to pick and choose their candidate, rural ones will tend to vote for the same cabals as always, and I can't see that changing right now. Even at the height of Thaksin's popularity, he had to rely on buying out these family dynasties, and their proxies, in order to get his hands on the NE. Who controls them controls the government.

You seems to know very well the subject , many years in Thailand I guess . Basically yes it is hard to predict who comes to power

Just hope there is not a coup or violence again by the way

[animatic]

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 .

It might be a different issue of say "Margaret Thatcher was hanging in Argentina'

and working the BNP into a froth over Gordon Brown not listening to their wants.

Then aligning them with the Socialist Worker Party and the Scots Nationalist party,

then a few renegade SAS operatives going to meet her in Buenos Aires and

Declaring a Peoples Army of England with John Major as army Chief....

And announcing to stadium Rally Screens that the revolution is coming,

But John Major gets cold feet,

and all the above groups should race motorcycles in Barkley Square

and block London traffic at random, and protest permits aren't needed,

and lets do a blood letting and paint Number 10 Downing in blood....

for a cathartic moral victory....

and The future 'Queen' Margret must be given a pass for all her crimes against the magna carta ,

and against the poor miners in North Umberland in the 80's etc etc.

But wait for her next call in....

If you turn all the players into another nations players... you soon realize how

totally off the wall this Thailand scene is...

Edited March 23, 2010 by animatic

[frodo]

"MPs unaware of developments and prevented from goin' about their business." (Unannouced occupation of Parliament House earlier. )

Do you have a legitimate source for this? Is there any confirmation to what you are saying?

Looking at the current ramblings from the UDD website, I would say it's just hot hair and nothing more. I cannot find any other media source picking up on this, only the UDD.

Animatic hit it on the head of the nail a few posts ago.

[Jerrytheyoung]

I have followed (a little) what was happening to Prem and Chavalit strange ballet today.

-First Chavalit declaring Prem is sick and in hospital, ready to meet Prem

-Secondly the Aide of Prem saying on contrary that Prem is in good health

Just my analysis:

I think Chavalit want to mediate and find a solution through discussions. He has taken the direction of the Red Shirts in order to smooth the movement and in this perspective to conduct negociations. Also he has probably tried to destabilise the coalition.

Prem is really offset, and the apparent "shilly shallying" is in fact a slap to signify to Chavalit that he falls into disgrace.

It also means a strenghtening of Prem and consequently Governement. We are on a hard option tonite.

How do you perceive the exchange of Communiques and statements between Chavalit and Prem/

Edited March 23, 2010 by Jerrytheyoung

[traderjm]

Sounds like you want to provoke violence to a peaceful protest....

Sounds like you should learn to understand what you read. I was not provoking anything, I was merely passing along what a large number of THAI'S in my village are tossing out as suggestions.

There is NOTHING peaceful about the red shirt thugs running into stores on their "parade" route and asking for free water and food from vendors to support their cause. Nor was it even close to organized in our area, trucks blocking roads in both directions, blocking fly overs, it was a mess. In speaking to a number of vendors at the mouth of our Soi we were told their daily take was down from 50 to 70% vs. an average Saturday.

Yes it all sounds like a wonderful idea as the red shirts continue to hurt their own, the lower middle class and working poor with their nonsense as they continue to be puppets and for the most part without a clue as to why based on the conversations my wife and I have had with those that are supportive of the cause.

I realize in looking over your posts you are no doubt as biased as one can be for whatever your personal reasons are, so I don't expect reality to have any effect on your point of view. So my OP and this rebuttal are clearly not for you but for those looking on for unbiased information as to what happened over the weekend.

[bulmercke]

I have followed (a little) what was happening to Prem and Chavalit strange ballet today.

-First Chavalit declaring Prem is sick and in hospital, ready to meet Prem

-Secondly the Aide of Prem saying on contrary that Prem is in good health

Just my analysis:

I think Chavalit want to mediate and find a solution through discussions. He has taken the direction of the Red Shirts in order to smooth the movement and in this perspective to conduct negociations. Also he has probably tried to destabilise the coalition.

Prem is really offset, and the apparent "shilly shallying" is in fact a slap to signify to Chavalit that he falls into disgrace.

It also means a strenghtening of Prem and consequently Governement. We are on a hard option tonite.

How do you perceive the exchange of Communiques and statements between Chavalit and Prem/

I think most would agree that the situation remains extremely tense at this moment. Anything could happen in the next twenty-four hours and it probably will.

[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 ?

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!

I think you are the numb uncomprehending one yes . I never said that because you got a coalition it cant change .

Its not about that

Look bout UK below , in theoretical terms

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?

[yoshiwara]

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!

Every so often some red apologists get excited at the idea of violence.

Unfortunately they have very short memories and forget that the most recent series of violent events was the responsibility of the reds last Songkran.

One can see from the above contribution that a few reds are straining at the leash.

It must be very frustrating saying 'we are so peaceful' when everybody else is looking for the baseball bat hidden behind the red backs.

And hey, the army has hardly hard to twitch a muscle so far.

Edited March 23, 2010 by yoshiwara

[animatic]

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!

I think you are the numb uncomprehending one yes . I never said that because you got a coalition it cant change .

Its not about that

Look bout UK below , in theoretical terms

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?

Shouldn't matter if it was done legally. ( again see Israel Knesset voting block patterns in last 25 years or so)

There is always a segment ready to scream bloody murder when they don't get their way.

See USA Republican party losing the health care vote...

bile is rising and vindictiveness with it.

Rush Limbaugh and the Tea Party zealots are gargling their lower lips,

and it makes no difference, because it was done legally.

A government is basically the PM. Change the PM change the government...

Well Gordon Brown came in and no re-election, even if he was brought in because

his predecessors numbers were plummeting. And no doubt burnout too.

It was a change of 'government' none the less, and the British subjects had no say in the matter.

Labor and Conservative MP's and cabinet members get taken down regularly, same for Thailands,

the opposition always says that is time for an election or a reason to kill the government.

It rarely is... but the opposition ALWAYS wants the government toi fall. it's a question of

HOW CROOKED ARE THEY WILLING TO BE TO MAKE IT HAPPEN?....

Seems to be VERY bent here abouts.

Edited March 23, 2010 by animatic

[Thai at Heart]

There is no logical reason for a government side coup,

and since the army and the government are clearly acting on the same page,

there is even less reason for a coup in any form.

That they reach around their rally site is getting more constricted makes sense.

There are much less of them and thereis no reason that neighborhoods residents

must be inconvenienced over an area suitable for 100k when only 20k are there.

Of course the continual derangement of the public by the reds wide ranging protests

is designed for forcing a 'public safety measure' of restricting them to their main protest site

and not anywhere they feel like will cause problems.

Sop being as there is a naturally occurring us against them group paranoia from the top down in the Red ranks,

it's not surprising that they are begging for help and witnesses for the 'theoretical brutality'

that 'some of their leaders' need to make a political change of playing field.

With out this change in dynamic the reds are stalemated and well done at that.

Since when did there need to be any logic behind a coup? They have cooked up reasons for 70 years to justify their abnormal significance in society.

In reality, all it would take would be for Abhisit and Korn to say, we need half of your budget to pay for rice subsidies. The biggest single hurdle for the country to jump over to have democracy is not Thaksin's corruption, Abhisits weird parliamentary majority or the Red's call for elections, it is someone trying to put the army (and the Privy Council) in it's place.

[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.

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 .

But that's what I'm trying to explain. It is basically the same case. They use the same system as Australia and UK.

Could ... will ... whatever ... the point is, if the government COULD fall every 10 days, then using your logic, you COULD have elections every 10 days instead.

[Thai at Heart]

Could ... will ... whatever ... the point is, if the government COULD fall every 10 days, then using your logic, you COULD have elections every 10 days instead.

The odd thing is, and I am not sure that even the British or Ozzie system could handle it.

What would happen if in a single 4 or 5 year term the same small majority breaking party switched sides twice to create 3 separate majorities for 2 separate parties.

Constitutional experts anyone?

Presumably in the UK they would dust of a law from 500 years ago stating that in that instance the Lords would run the country for 6 months and the house of Commons would be flogged in public and put in stocks for being dickheads.

[Thai at Heart]

It's hard to be on the side that's losing. Particularly when you care if people think you have credibility.

You've been so far up Thaksin's ass for years now that it must sting mightily that a non corrupt leader might move this country forward. Yeah. when Thaksin scored some points we'd see you on your hands, moth pursed, and knees bent before him. When he said things no one on Earth could defend you'd take a step back and for just a micro second keep your stupid fuc_king mouth shut. It must be wonderful to be as bloodthirsty as you and have absolutely none of your own skin in trhe game. What a fuc_king pussy. I'd love to know your details so I could say the same to your face. asshol_e.

The sad thing is that we sit here debating whether Thaksin was better or worse than some or others, when the real manipulators could run 100 tanks into town and reset the clock for the 18th time and no one, and I mean literally no one would have any recourse to complain.

Abhisit is probably the cleanest PM this country has had, but also one of the most privileged. That isn't in any way a good reflection on the myriad of democratically elected or army appointed sleaze that has come before. There is the odd one or two who can be talked of as having the country's best interests at heart, but they are few and their motivation is also debatable.

The best thing about Abhisit is that he could actually return after a coup.

Abhisit's biggest weakness is the need to have army approval as was all PM's cross to bear.

Edited March 23, 2010 by Thai at Heart

[Jerrytheyoung]

Could ... will ... whatever ... the point is, if the government COULD fall every 10 days, then using your logic, you COULD have elections every 10 days instead.

The odd thing is, and I am not sure that even the British or Ozzie system could handle it.

What would happen if in a single 4 or 5 year term the same small majority breaking party switched sides twice to create 3 separate majorities for 2 separate parties.

Constitutional experts anyone?

Presumably in the UK they would dust of a law from 500 years ago stating that in that instance the Lords would run the country for 6 months and the house of Commons would be flogged in public and put in stocks for being dickheads.

Yes a Parliamentary system can drive a country to deadlocks. In France, in1946, de Gaulle resigned because the Constitution which was prepared was a parliamentary system, and in the 50's the French situation has been a serie of deadlocks, particularly the management of the French Vietnam war by the successive Government at the mercy of a parliament vote has been very poor. The unability to take decision in difficult situations has been underlined by Historians. When De Gaulle came back to Power in 1958, it has been under the condition the Constitution was revised. It has been done, and since the French Affairs management is running more smoothly. We are now closer to the US system than the UK one. However, I think Thailand has to find its own way due to its particularisms and French or US systems are not applicable here.

[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 .

But that's what I'm trying to explain. It is basically the same case. They use the same system as Australia and UK.

Could ... will ... whatever ... the point is, if the government COULD fall every 10 days, then using your logic, you COULD have elections every 10 days instead.

OK fine . Here one possible scenario

1) Chavalit or whichever smaller party (maybe paid by Thaksin) defects to the PTP soon .

2) PTP comes in power right ?

3) If PTP do then a early general election AND PTP win then they dont need Thaksin , if they loose

, same Thaksin out .

Same same and good .

But you say no need for general election right , so no election ok fine

4) PTP coalition shaky , realise that they cant win at the next general election without Thaksin

4) PTP calls back Thaksin

Good ?

Of course probably a coup at any of those points

Good ?

Edited March 23, 2010 by moresomekl

[animatic]

There is ALWAYS a logic to any coup anywhere.

If it doesn't meet your expectations of validity, this should not surprise.

But to expect people, especially trained military types to overthrow a government,

without some logical reasoning that THEY at least comprehend, is a stretch too far.

There MUST be some argument tnat makes push come to shove in these 95% of these cases.

Sure some rare times a colonel or lower ranked officer gets his toes stepped on and attempts

to start an insurrection to save his ass, but that is a rare instance.And typically get put down fast.

I just don't see much logical reason to have one except from the Thaksin side of things.

He tried in the past to install his own generals, and Abhisit is not, so the army would much

more likely support, the one not rocking the boat, and not trying to put them out of a job to install his cousins.

This isn't supporting coups, just noting why one tonight seems totally illogical.

[Thai at Heart]

Could ... will ... whatever ... the point is, if the government COULD fall every 10 days, then using your logic, you COULD have elections every 10 days instead.

The odd thing is, and I am not sure that even the British or Ozzie system could handle it.

What would happen if in a single 4 or 5 year term the same small majority breaking party switched sides twice to create 3 separate majorities for 2 separate parties.

Constitutional experts anyone?

Presumably in the UK they would dust of a law from 500 years ago stating that in that instance the Lords would run the country for 6 months and the house of Commons would be flogged in public and put in stocks for being dickheads.

Yes a Parliamentary system can drive a country to deadlocks. In France, in1946, de Gaulle resigned because the Constitution which was prepared was a parliamentary system, and in the 50's the French situation has been a serie of deadlocks, particularly the management of the French Vietnam war by the successive Government at the mercy of a parliament vote has been very poor. The unability to take decision in difficult situations has been underlined by Historians. When De Gaulle came back to Power in 1958, it has been under the condition the Constitution was revised. It has been done, and since the French Affairs management is running more smoothly. We are now closer to the US system than the UK one. However, I think Thailand has to find its own way due to its particularisms and French or US systems are not applicable here.

In which case it would rely on the old British idea of "Doing the right thing", or the Ozzie feeling "Fair game sport" and call an election. Thank God the UK doesn't have proportional representation or nothing would ever get done.

Of course Abhisit will never do such thing because he doesn't have to and he can operate the government. Of course he needs Newin's sleaze bags to do it, but such is the way of politics.

[anotherpeter]

Could ... will ... whatever ... the point is, if the government COULD fall every 10 days, then using your logic, you COULD have elections every 10 days instead.

The odd thing is, and I am not sure that even the British or Ozzie system could handle it.

What would happen if in a single 4 or 5 year term the same small majority breaking party switched sides twice to create 3 separate majorities for 2 separate parties.

Constitutional experts anyone?

Presumably in the UK they would dust of a law from 500 years ago stating that in that instance the Lords would run the country for 6 months and the house of Commons would be flogged in public and put in stocks for being dickheads.

I don't think it's a constitutional issue. The electorate would get sick of it and eventually not vote for the swinging party.

[britadders28]

Bring me any red shirt able to prove he/she knows Exim is not an exotic dish and Temasek a DIY brand and I will start to listen to him/her.

Until then, I just see them as manipulated folks serving the cause of a greedy, dictator-to-be billionaire on the run. They simply do not understand the game they are used for.

My factory staff is tuned all day long on a red shirts radio. Speechs would make you feel like you were listening to a Rwandese radio days before it went ugly.

Not good to insult the people.

By the way, when we, French, made the revolution in 1789, I'm pretty sure that some wise men like you told "the populace will never be able to manage the country". But we did! With difficulties yes but France is now a proud country with a stable government.

Same in USA when they expelled the British.

France a proud nation, haha

Without the allies you would all be Germans

But since you only refer to 1700's and not 1900's

I can see how you relate to Thaksin Napoleon Shina-part

Two alleged great leaders spending their greying days

in exile

You would all be speaking german if it wasnt for us brits and yanks and yes thailand that includes you as i doubt japan would have been around long

[Thai at Heart]

Could ... will ... whatever ... the point is, if the government COULD fall every 10 days, then using your logic, you COULD have elections every 10 days instead.

The odd thing is, and I am not sure that even the British or Ozzie system could handle it.

What would happen if in a single 4 or 5 year term the same small majority breaking party switched sides twice to create 3 separate majorities for 2 separate parties.

Constitutional experts anyone?

Presumably in the UK they would dust of a law from 500 years ago stating that in that instance the Lords would run the country for 6 months and the house of Commons would be flogged in public and put in stocks for being dickheads.

I don't think it's a constitutional issue. The electorate would get sick of it and eventually not vote for the swinging party.

Well as I stated earlier, if for example Newin's voters are p*****d off at his conduct they won't vote for him or his bumjaithai colleagues

If I was PPP, I would put millions of baht at the disposal of their candidates in all of his candidates areas and take great pleasure in smashing his candidates to smithereens. Of course if that didn't happen, what would the people who claim that the PPP/TRT always buy votes have to say? What a conundrum.

If nothing else it will be an interesting election (presuming we get to that point and the tanks don't roll before) in which case it will be an even more interesting election under another new constitution.

Edited March 23, 2010 by Thai at Heart

[lannarebirth]

It's hard to be on the side that's losing. Particularly when you care if people think you have credibility.

You've been so far up Thaksin's ass for years now that it must sting mightily that a non corrupt leader might move this country forward. Yeah. when Thaksin scored some points we'd see you on your hands, moth pursed, and knees bent before him. When he said things no one on Earth could defend you'd take a step back and for just a micro second keep your stupid fuc_king mouth shut. It must be wonderful to be as bloodthirsty as you and have absolutely none of your own skin in trhe game. What a fuc_king pussy. I'd love to know your details so I could say the same to your face. asshol_e.

The sad thing is that we sit here debating whether Thaksin was better or worse than some or others, when the real manipulators could run 100 tanks into town and reset the clock for the 18th time and no one, and I mean literally no one would have any recourse to complain.

Abhisit is probably the cleanest PM this country has had, but also one of the most privileged. That isn't in any way a good reflection on the myriad of democratically elected or army appointed sleaze that has come before. There is the odd one or two who can be talked of as having the country's best interests at heart, but they are few and their motivation is also debatable.

The best thing about Abhisit is that he could actually return after a coup.

Abhisit's biggest weakness is the need to have army approval as was all PM's cross to bear.

I think alot of people debate as persons who perhaps have never employed or worked with "country" people. I'll tell you honestly, they're the only people I can even stand to hang around for more than 30 minutes. Just can't stand "upper class " Thais "for the most part". That said, most of ther country people I've met are not terribly bright. I'm glad there are people like Abhisit that have an egalitarian view about Thai society that are seeing to their interests.

[anotherpeter]

OK fine . Here possible cenario

1) Chavalit or whichever smaller party paid by Thaksin defects to the PTP .

2) PTP comes in power right ?

3) If have election AND PTP win then they dont need Thaksin , if they loose same Thaksin out .

But you say no need for election right , so no election ok fine

4) PTP coalition shaky , realise that they cant win at the next general election without Thaksin

4) PTP calls back Thaksin

Good ?

Might have a coup at any of those points

Good ?

If the PTP get into government, they would most likely try and bring Thaksin back. As soon as they tried to squash his conviction or give his money back, there would be a coup (mainly because there WOULD be a million people protesting).

So the choice becomes Thaksin or coup. Neither good for the country.