What Do You Want Pm Abhisit To Do Now?

[ChiangMaiFun]

Thais will never forgive him

Two presumptions: one, that all Thais hold him to blame - certainly not true; two, that you speak for all Thais - not true either.

One: maybe not all but millions will Two: I never presumed such as you well know and this is a typical red (forgive pun) herring

[britmaveric]

^history has not been kind to those PM that shed thai blood, so at the end of the day Abhisit is in that category. Does he make it worse or do the right thing and resign, dissolve the house and call for elections?

[hammered]

Abhsit, at this very moment is writing a dark page of his own regretable history which cannot be erased... no matter how we look at it... This need no intelligence, a common senses will do.

I agree.

I can't help but think he has been thoroughly used and abused by his masters.

He will never be remembered as a good leader, just an weak and stubborn fool with blood on his hands.

I assume you will also ditto in the equally stubborn red leadership as I am sure one who accuses others of looking at things through yellow glasses wouldnt want to be accused of having his own red ones on

Personally dont believe you have to support the violent luntaic gangs of red or yellow and that you can condemn both equally along with government and opposition parties for their recent actions. Still nop doubt I will upset everyone especially the cheerleaders of one lot or th other by that statement

Edited April 20, 2010 by hammered

[KireB]

Abhsit, at this very moment is writing a dark page of his own regretable history which cannot be erased... no matter how we look at it... This need no intelligence, a common senses will do.

I agree.

I can't help but think he has been thoroughly used and abused by his masters.

He will never be remembered as a good leader, just an weak and stubborn fool with blood on his hands.

agreed - and the crazy thing... he could have been very good - Thais will never forgive him

The Thais that wont forgive him are the same Thais supporting a mass murderer who should be tried in The Hague for crimes against humanity.

Double standards to the power 1,000!

[rixalex]

Thais will never forgive him

Two presumptions: one, that all Thais hold him to blame - certainly not true; two, that you speak for all Thais - not true either.

One: maybe not all but millions will Two: I never presumed such as you well know and this is a typical red (forgive pun) herring

As well i know? I'm afraid not.

Rather than talking about "Thais thinking this" or "Thais feeling that", why not just stick to "my Thai teerak and the in-laws think this" or "my Thai teerak and the in-laws feel that"? Might avoid the confusion of it sounding like you are the self-appointed foreign mouthpiece for all Thais.

[eurasianthai]

I think I said it before, resign.

How many dead Thai people, soldiers, red shirts, whatever, does it take for him to resign?

And I like him actually. Or should I say I liked him?

Promoting the use of force and the risk of getting more Thai people injured or dead is a no no for me.

And well, should be for every Thai.

[rixalex]

I think I said it before, resign.

How many dead Thai people, soldiers, red shirts, whatever, does it take for him to resign?

And I like him actually. Or should I say I liked him?

Promoting the use of force and the risk of getting more Thai people injured or dead is a no no for me.

And well, should be for every Thai.

Great idea. Surrender to terrorism.

[ChiangMaiFun]

Thais will never forgive him

Two presumptions: one, that all Thais hold him to blame - certainly not true; two, that you speak for all Thais - not true either.

One: maybe not all but millions will Two: I never presumed such as you well know and this is a typical red (forgive pun) herring

As well i know? I'm afraid not.

Rather than talking about "Thais thinking this" or "Thais feeling that", why not just stick to "my Thai teerak and the in-laws think this" or "my Thai teerak and the in-laws feel that"? Might avoid the confusion of it sounding like you are the self-appointed foreign mouthpiece for all Thais.

Then you will support early elections to find out what Thais are thinking won't you? instead of defending this un-mandadted government - your clever way of trying to make me sound like I think I speak for Thais won't work - I have no illusions like the ones you allude to (others maybe but not that one) and you know I was using speach fuguratively - stick to the points rather than personally critisise.

[anotherpeter]

Then you will support early elections to find out what Thais are thinking won't you? instead of defending this un-mandadted government - your clever way of trying to make me sound like I think I speak for Thais won't work - I have no illusions like the ones you allude to (others maybe but not that one) and you know I was using speach fuguratively - stick to the points rather than personally critisise.

1) What gives a government "a mandate"?

2) Why doesn't Abhisit have "a mandate"?

(and given that your answer to 2 will probably be "not elected")

3) Can you please explain the process of how Samak and Somchai were elected PM, and how that differed for Abhisit.

Edited April 21, 2010 by anotherpeter

[rixalex]

Then you will support early elections to find out what Thais are thinking won't you?

I support elections but unlike you, i don't support elections forced via violent means.

Shortly after Abhisit became PM, i was one of the ones on here saying that i thought he should go to the polls at the soonest available moment. I would still be advocating that were it not for the reds to now be trying to force their wishes on the entire country. That's not democracy and giving in to their demands would be perpectuating this cycle of mob rule, that the reds were supposed to be fighting against.

your clever way of trying to make me sound like I think I speak for Thais won't work - I have no illusions like the ones you allude to (others maybe but not that one) and you know I was using speach fuguratively - stick to the points rather than personally critisise.

It's not me trying to be clever or me trying to trick you, it's you using inappropriate and misleading vocabulary. Why you take that personally i have no idea.

[animatic]

I think I said it before, resign.

How many dead Thai people, soldiers, red shirts, whatever, does it take for him to resign?

And I like him actually. Or should I say I liked him?

Promoting the use of force and the risk of getting more Thai people injured or dead is a no no for me.

And well, should be for every Thai.

Great idea. Surrender to terrorism.

Since not one actual party has EVER won an election over 50%

including Thaksin's TRT except when dona s TRT a COALITION brought together

for as SHORT time under One Name saying it is now a large party.

Calling a coalition a party doesn't make it so.

So nothing more than a MANDATE VIA SEMANTICS.

Thaksin one a mandate through word games.

This has shown that, there has NEVER been an actual MANDATE won in Thai history.

renaming smaller parties as "FACTIONS" for a year or so of time under TRT's umbrella,

and then watching those FACTIONS leaving when it suited them and becoming PARTIES again,

as they were before Thaksin pre-purchased his coalition partners,

shows that this was never the mandated win he likes to claim.

They acted no different as factions as they did as independent parties.

Sanoh, Banharn, Newin et all, same thing, medeum size parties just 're-labeled factions' for a time.

Either a party is a long term entity of a size, or it is a cobbled together coalition grouping.

That Thaksin built his coalition BEFORE an election rather than after makes it no less

a coalition of political convenience. And not a party winning a true mandate.

So forgetting the mandate idea as dead on the ground, we go to violence.

As the legally elected government based on parliamentary voting procedures,

precisely similar to those of the 3 previous governments installations,

then the onus to protecting the ENTIRE nations global rights, and not just one loud

and violent pressure group's misused protesting rights, clearly takes precedence.

Allowing the Red Shirts to continue to abuse basic laws and the goodwill of the majority of Thais

and their rights, is a notn starter. The situation is only becoming violent because of the acts

and actions of this red shirts to escalate and froce violence. This is clearly seen by most unbiased viewers.

The government has been WAY too tolerant and even handed.

If this goes violent even Amnesty International has pointed out which side is abusing human rights.

And in this rare case it was NOT the government shown as rights oppressors...

They called out Thaksin by name to speak against it, ands he is silent.

Edited April 21, 2010 by animatic

[LevelHead]

The trouble is here the "want to change the constitution argument".

The 1997 "Peoples Constitution" is fine. It was until the Army threw it into the bin in 2006 and put in place their "flawed" version.

What should happen is the 1997 one should be put back into place. Everyone was happy with that for 9 years.

The only reason the Army had to bin it is that under it a coup is a treason offense, so to get around treason they had to get rid of the constitution.

Now, the Democrats and their coalition partners want to "amend" the electoral law. Basically they want to change the way MP's are elected such that PTP (PPP/TRT) can never win again. They want to take all high seat constituencies where PTP get lots of MP's and take them down to being just 1 MP.

So, you can imagine that this so called "amend the constitution" is never going to happen. This is why the 9 months, 6 months offers are just bull, as they all say "after amending" and there is no way that its ever going to be amended.

This is why the Reds simply rejected all the fake offers from Abhisit so far. They know he is insincere the moment he and his cohorts say " ? months AFTER amending the constitution".

I am sure if he said "put back the 1997 one and have an election in 6 months" then all Reds would be happy.

But he does not and always says that the constitution must be amended prior to any new election. Thats his "lets never have an election" clause.

Therefore, he should resign. He should have months back.

He has shown himself to be everything but a leader, and 100% to be a puppet on a string. He now has blood on his hands via his decisions as PM.

The Democrats are scared stiff of elections and they should be, their actions of the last few weeks has lost them the support of many many more voters. Under the 1997 or the new constitution the Democrats and their coalition partners will now get stuffed completely in any election.

Therefore they have to try to hold off and not have elections (make fake promises with preset conditions that cannot be met) and must push to amend the present constitution in order to try to let them win more seats.

TRT/PPP won the last god knows how many elections under the 1997 and the present constitution, the Elite/Yellows see the only way of ensuring they do not again is to rig the election by changing the elections laws under the constitution (you know the kind of nonsense - present system 3M voters elect 10 MP's - they want changes so 3M red voters now elect 1 MP and 100 Yellow supporters elect 10 MP's).

So constitutional amendment is never going to be agreed, which is why you see how hollow Abhisit's offers were of elections, as he always tied on "but we must amend the constitution first"

Hollow man - should resign, should have resigned earlier and all these people would not be dead.

[ChiangMaiFun]

Then you will support early elections to find out what Thais are thinking won't you?

I support elections but unlike you, i don't support elections forced via violent means.

Shortly after Abhisit became PM, i was one of the ones on here saying that i thought he should go to the polls at the soonest available moment. I would still be advocating that were it not for the reds to now be trying to force their wishes on the entire country. That's not democracy and giving in to their demands would be perpectuating this cycle of mob rule, that the reds were supposed to be fighting against.

your clever way of trying to make me sound like I think I speak for Thais won't work - I have no illusions like the ones you allude to (others maybe but not that one) and you know I was using speach fuguratively - stick to the points rather than personally critisise.

It's not me trying to be clever or me trying to trick you, it's you using inappropriate and misleading vocabulary. Why you take that personally i have no idea.

I do not advocate violence either - never have, never will - I would have preferred the 'Ghandi' approach of peaceful protest - However, we can debate for decades about methodologies - the facts are the PM needs to, has to, will do - go to the polls and face the electorate - the result might not be pretty but that's democracy.

I actually quite liked Abhisit and thought he could do very well - whilst it WAS peaceful he should have 'grasped the moment' (in my view) and declared a detailed roadmap of dates for elections - say 3 to 6 months away.

We all have to remember (me too!) that TIT - it is decades away from stable government not influenced by corruption etc. but we cannot avoid this by propping up an unelected government - a government (though legal) that is there by shinanigans.

[anotherpeter]

I do not advocate violence either - never have, never will - I would have preferred the 'Ghandi' approach of peaceful protest - However, we can debate for decades about methodologies - the facts are the PM needs to, has to, will do - go to the polls and face the electorate - the result might not be pretty but that's democracy.

I actually quite liked Abhisit and thought he could do very well - whilst it WAS peaceful he should have 'grasped the moment' (in my view) and declared a detailed roadmap of dates for elections - say 3 to 6 months away.

We all have to remember (me too!) that TIT - it is decades away from stable government not influenced by corruption etc. but we cannot avoid this by propping up an unelected government - a government (though legal) that is there by shinanigans.

It seems like you are ignoring my question above, so I'll ask you again.

Given that you stated above "legal ... by shinanigans", how is it NOT an elected government?

Can you please explain the process of how Samak and Somchai were elected PM, and how that differed for Abhisit?

The PPP gathered together a group of coalition partners that campaigned that they would not support the PPP. What shinanigans went on then to make them join a PPP coalition?

[LevelHead]

The trouble is here the "want to change the constitution argument".

The 1997 "Peoples Constitution" is fine. It was until the Army threw it into the bin in 2006 and put in place their "flawed" version.

What should happen is the 1997 one should be put back into place. Everyone was happy with that for 9 years.

The only reason the Army had to bin it is that under it a coup is a treason offense, so to get around treason they had to get rid of the constitution.

Now, the Democrats and their coalition partners want to "amend" the electoral law. Basically they want to change the way MP's are elected such that PTP (PPP/TRT) can never win again. They want to take all high seat constituencies where PTP get lots of MP's and take them down to being just 1 MP.

So, you can imagine that this so called "amend the constitution" is never going to happen. This is why the 9 months, 6 months offers are just bull, as they all say "after amending" and there is no way that its ever going to be amended.

This is why the Reds simply rejected all the fake offers from Abhisit so far. They know he is insincere the moment he and his cohorts say " ? months AFTER amending the constitution".

I am sure if he said "put back the 1997 one and have an election in 6 months" then all Reds would be happy.

But he does not and always says that the constitution must be amended prior to any new election. Thats his "lets never have an election" clause.

Therefore, he should resign. He should have months back.

He has shown himself to be everything but a leader, and 100% to be a puppet on a string. He now has blood on his hands via his decisions as PM.

The Democrats are scared stiff of elections and they should be, their actions of the last few weeks has lost them the support of many many more voters. Under the 1997 or the new constitution the Democrats and their coalition partners will now get stuffed completely in any election.

Therefore they have to try to hold off and not have elections (make fake promises with preset conditions that cannot be met) and must push to amend the present constitution in order to try to let them win more seats.

TRT/PPP won the last god knows how many elections under the 1997 and the present constitution, the Elite/Yellows see the only way of ensuring they do not again is to rig the election by changing the elections laws under the constitution (you know the kind of nonsense - present system 3M voters elect 10 MP's - they want changes so 3M red voters now elect 1 MP and 100 Yellow supporters elect 10 MP's).

So constitutional amendment is never going to be agreed, which is why you see how hollow Abhisit's offers were of elections, as he always tied on "but we must amend the constitution first"

Hollow man - should resign, should have resigned earlier and all these people would not be dead.

CMF, you miss the point.

Abhisit and the Democrats DO NOT WANT AN ELECTION under the 1997 or the present constitution as they know they will lose.

This is why they refuse to have an election.

Its also why they insist the constitution must be changed prior to any election, they want to change it so they can win it by altering the rules.

Do not confuse the general want to change some parts of the constitution, with the new Democrat/Coalition demands to change the electoral laws/rules part of it.

PPP/PTP wanted to change agreed parts of the constitution BUT REFUSED TO COOPERATE further once the Dems/Elite demanded electoral law/rules change.

This is why there are problems, the Dems/Elite do not want to lose anymore elections so are offering all the banned MP's the chance to come back IF THEY SELL THEIR SOULS and allow the Dems/Elite to change the rules so PPP/PTP can never win again and always in future Dems will win every election.

The offer to them is of course "You can come back but we will always win after the changes, so hel_l, why not come back and join us and then we all win then".

Corruption - of the highest order ?

This is why PTP are opposed any constitutional amendments now, as the Dems want changes to ensure they alone are the major party in any future coalition governments.

Each aspect of this "fight" is very easy to understand, if you lift the hood and look under it, for each of the issues and grievances.

The major factor though is the Elite do not want Democracy, they are happy with a fake version, so long as they are in control of the puppet governments, but they never again want real democracy where they have no control over parliament through backdoor influence. Thats why they held a coup in 2006.

Edited April 21, 2010 by LevelHead

[ChiangMaiFun]

I do not advocate violence either - never have, never will - I would have preferred the 'Ghandi' approach of peaceful protest - However, we can debate for decades about methodologies - the facts are the PM needs to, has to, will do - go to the polls and face the electorate - the result might not be pretty but that's democracy.

I actually quite liked Abhisit and thought he could do very well - whilst it WAS peaceful he should have 'grasped the moment' (in my view) and declared a detailed roadmap of dates for elections - say 3 to 6 months away.

We all have to remember (me too!) that TIT - it is decades away from stable government not influenced by corruption etc. but we cannot avoid this by propping up an unelected government - a government (though legal) that is there by shinanigans.

It seems like you are ignoring my question above, so I'll ask you again.

Given that you stated above "legal ... by shinanigans", how is it NOT an elected government?

Can you please explain the process of how Samak and Somchai were elected PM, and how that differed for Abhisit?

The PPP gathered together a group of coalition partners that campaigned that they would not support the PPP. What shinanigans went on then to make them join a PPP coalition?

We have been through this many times (and I guess it depends on perspective) - the red elected government was banned and lost power - MPs jumped ship to join the yellows - anyway I'm sure everyone (including me and you) are bored by this endless round-and-round - let's get an election and let the people decide.

[jdinasia]

I do not advocate violence either - never have, never will - I would have preferred the 'Ghandi' approach of peaceful protest - However, we can debate for decades about methodologies - the facts are the PM needs to, has to, will do - go to the polls and face the electorate - the result might not be pretty but that's democracy.

I actually quite liked Abhisit and thought he could do very well - whilst it WAS peaceful he should have 'grasped the moment' (in my view) and declared a detailed roadmap of dates for elections - say 3 to 6 months away.

We all have to remember (me too!) that TIT - it is decades away from stable government not influenced by corruption etc. but we cannot avoid this by propping up an unelected government - a government (though legal) that is there by shinanigans.

It seems like you are ignoring my question above, so I'll ask you again.

Given that you stated above "legal ... by shinanigans", how is it NOT an elected government?

Can you please explain the process of how Samak and Somchai were elected PM, and how that differed for Abhisit?

The PPP gathered together a group of coalition partners that campaigned that they would not support the PPP. What shinanigans went on then to make them join a PPP coalition?

CMF has answered repeatedly that the current government is legit ----- he is still supporting the violent rhetoric of the red mob though ... <snip>

Edited April 21, 2010 by Jai Dee
flame deleted

[anotherpeter]

It seems like you are ignoring my question above, so I'll ask you again.

Given that you stated above "legal ... by shinanigans", how is it NOT an elected government?

Can you please explain the process of how Samak and Somchai were elected PM, and how that differed for Abhisit?

The PPP gathered together a group of coalition partners that campaigned that they would not support the PPP. What shinanigans went on then to make them join a PPP coalition?

We have been through this many times (and I guess it depends on perspective) - the red elected government was banned and lost power - MPs jumped ship to join the yellows - anyway I'm sure everyone (including me and you) are bored by this endless round-and-round - let's get an election and let the people decide.

Many reds have been through it with their lies and half-truths. That's why I ask for details.

The government (made up of coalition parties) was not banned. A few MPs were banned.

The PTP (ex-PPP MPs) were still in government after the PPP was disbanded, until the coalition parties decided not to support them.

Why the smaller parties decided not to support the PTP is open for discussion.

Why the smaller parties decided to support the PPP in the first place is also open for discussion.

But the fact is, the PPP got into government because of the support of the smaller parties, and they (now PTP) got out of government because they lost the support of the smaller parties.

[anotherpeter]

CMF, you miss the point.

Abhisit and the Democrats DO NOT WANT AN ELECTION under the 1997 or the present constitution as they know they will lose.

This is why they refuse to have an election.

Its also why they insist the constitution must be changed prior to any election, they want to change it so they can win it by altering the rules.

<snip>

The Democrats want to change the constitution with input from all parties and then voted for by the people through a referendum.

The reds want elections first, because they want to be in power so they can change the constitution to suit them only and not for the benefit of Thailand.

The constitution shouldn't be continually changed by the government that is in power at the time. It should be fixed for all Thais, with input from all sections of the community, and voted for by the people ... separate from political elections.

[ChiangMaiFun]

CMF, you miss the point.

Abhisit and the Democrats DO NOT WANT AN ELECTION under the 1997 or the present constitution as they know they will lose.

This is why they refuse to have an election.

Its also why they insist the constitution must be changed prior to any election, they want to change it so they can win it by altering the rules.

<snip>

The Democrats want to change the constitution with input from all parties and then voted for by the people through a referendum.

The reds want elections first, because they want to be in power so they can change the constitution to suit them only and not for the benefit of Thailand.

The constitution shouldn't be continually changed by the government that is in power at the time. It should be fixed for all Thais, with input from all sections of the community, and voted for by the people ... separate from political elections.

but there is no way out of this impasse - it should be a 'special commission' with representatives from all parties - away from government

[quiksilva]

Levelhead The problem with the 1997 charter was that Thaksin abused the loopholes that were in it that allowed him to remove checks and balances on his power from the system. The opposition could not censure him. He was free to do exactly as he pleased, and did so repeatedly. His unchecked orders and demands resulted in the loss of innocent lives (Tak Bai, War on Drugs), suppression of the media, and corruption. This is why I believe the Dems find it to be unacceptable.

As for not wanting an election, they have already offered to dissolve the house before the end of this year, which is almost a year before the end of their term. Do you honestly think the Dems think that 9 months will change the results of an election?

Yet even this was rejected by the Reds, who also rejected a national referendum on house dissolution when offered.

Why do you think that is?

[anotherpeter]

CMF, you miss the point.

Abhisit and the Democrats DO NOT WANT AN ELECTION under the 1997 or the present constitution as they know they will lose.

This is why they refuse to have an election.

Its also why they insist the constitution must be changed prior to any election, they want to change it so they can win it by altering the rules.

<snip>

The Democrats want to change the constitution with input from all parties and then voted for by the people through a referendum.

The reds want elections first, because they want to be in power so they can change the constitution to suit them only and not for the benefit of Thailand.

The constitution shouldn't be continually changed by the government that is in power at the time. It should be fixed for all Thais, with input from all sections of the community, and voted for by the people ... separate from political elections.

but there is no way out of this impasse - it should be a 'special commission' with representatives from all parties - away from government

Maybe. But it would most likely still involve many politicians, since they "represent" the people.

It certainly should be separate to any elections for government.

The reds have proposed that it should be the elected government that controls what is in the constitution. They want the elections to be about who changes the constitution, not who is the best group to govern the country.

[ChiangMaiFun]

CMF, you miss the point.

Abhisit and the Democrats DO NOT WANT AN ELECTION under the 1997 or the present constitution as they know they will lose.

This is why they refuse to have an election.

Its also why they insist the constitution must be changed prior to any election, they want to change it so they can win it by altering the rules.

<snip>

The Democrats want to change the constitution with input from all parties and then voted for by the people through a referendum.

The reds want elections first, because they want to be in power so they can change the constitution to suit them only and not for the benefit of Thailand.

The constitution shouldn't be continually changed by the government that is in power at the time. It should be fixed for all Thais, with input from all sections of the community, and voted for by the people ... separate from political elections.

but there is no way out of this impasse - it should be a 'special commission' with representatives from all parties - away from government

Maybe. But it would most likely still involve many politicians, since they "represent" the people.

It certainly should be separate to any elections for government.

The reds have proposed that it should be the elected government that controls what is in the constitution. They want the elections to be about who changes the constitution, not who is the best group to govern the country.

Clearly I would not agree with them on that one - as it's going to go round-and-round as the next minority party wants the same. However, I still believe, that an election this year is the only way out of the current crisis - I guess deep down I know that we are decades away from a real fair and non-corrupt society here - it pervades EVERYTHING -

it's not nice,

it's not fair,

it's Thailand.

[rixalex]

What should happen is the 1997 one should be put back into place. Everyone was happy with that for 9 years.

NO, everyone wasn't happy with it. Thaksin and his TRT party had shown it to be riddled with loop-holes that laid it open to massive abuses that led us to where we are today. Power needs to be diluted down to some degree, to prevent the virtual dictatorship that Thaksin so enjoyed. Giving that much power and control over to one man in a country like this is far too risky.

[anotherpeter]

oops ... post deleted.

Edited April 21, 2010 by anotherpeter

[rixalex]

We have been through this many times (and I guess it depends on perspective) - the red elected government was banned and lost power - MPs jumped ship to join the yellows - anyway I'm sure everyone (including me and you) are bored by this endless round-and-round - let's get an election and let the people decide.

The only thing that bores me is the dodging tactics used by those when confronted with facts that completely undermine the entire premise of their argument. Specifically speaking, in case you hadn't guessed, i'm talking about your "argument" of why the current government has no mandate and must step down.

[otherstuff1957]

Both the 1997 and the 2007 Constitutions have their flaws. As Thaksin showed, the '97 constitution gave too much power to the PM and Cabinet and lacked the judicial and legislative balance. The 2007 Constitution is less democratic, with it's percentage of appointed Senators and lack of protections of freedom of speech.

Abhisit has repeatedly offered to work with the opposition of amend the current Constitution to correct it's flaws. The PT party and the Red shirts have repeatedly refused to do so. Perhaps they are refusing to work with the government on ethical grounds, but given their track record, I find it highly unlikely. More likely, the paymaster is the one refusing to amend the Constitution, as he knows that Democrat approved amendments won't get his frozen money back and won't get him a pardon/re-election.

[ChiangMaiFun]

We have been through this many times (and I guess it depends on perspective) - the red elected government was banned and lost power - MPs jumped ship to join the yellows - anyway I'm sure everyone (including me and you) are bored by this endless round-and-round - let's get an election and let the people decide.

The only thing that bores me is the dodging tactics used by those when confronted with facts that completely undermine the entire premise of their argument. Specifically speaking, in case you hadn't guessed, i'm talking about your "argument" of why the current government has no mandate and must step down.

My premise is quite simple - there are grave doubts by many (not all) that the government has come to power through 'undemocratic means' I cannot go further but TIT not all things are as they seem. Now a large proportion of the people have expressed their concern - and the current PM has acknowledged that he did not come to power in an 'ideal' way - put all of this together and it is not unreasonable to come to the conclusion that there is no mandate - to have such a mandate would need a fair and balanced election - whoever won that would have my 100% support.

[anotherpeter]

We have been through this many times (and I guess it depends on perspective) - the red elected government was banned and lost power - MPs jumped ship to join the yellows - anyway I'm sure everyone (including me and you) are bored by this endless round-and-round - let's get an election and let the people decide.

The only thing that bores me is the dodging tactics used by those when confronted with facts that completely undermine the entire premise of their argument. Specifically speaking, in case you hadn't guessed, i'm talking about your "argument" of why the current government has no mandate and must step down.

My premise is quite simple - there are grave doubts by many (not all) that the government has come to power through 'undemocratic means' I cannot go further but TIT not all things are as they seem. Now a large proportion of the people have expressed their concern - and the current PM has acknowledged that he did not come to power in an 'ideal' way - put all of this together and it is not unreasonable to come to the conclusion that there is no mandate - to have such a mandate would need a fair and balanced election - whoever won that would have my 100% support.

There are "grave doubts" because many people don't understand the facts.

How many times have you seen stated on here that the reds "won" the last election "with a majority"?

They completely ignore the coalition with smaller parties. And they completely ignore that the same smaller parties that put the PPP into government, did the same with the Democrats.

And people, such as you, continue to state that "Abhisit is unelected", even though they are presented with facts.

[Brocher]

I think the guy's doing a marvellous job under VERY difficult circumstances and I hope he'll manage to stay the course and see off the Red Shirt thugs.

I just wish we had a politician like him to run the UK - an honest, decent man who obviously loves his country and is trying to do his very best to govern fairly but firmly and will not give way to violent mobs backed by terrorists.

Why on earth can the Red Shirts not wait till later in the year for the elections that have been promised? Is Thaksin down to his last few billions?