PM Abhisit Announces Next Election Will Be Held On Nov 14

[whybother]

No a PM dont need 51% of the vote to get a mandate , the PM can get a mandate by forming a coalition , provided that coalition comes from parties in a parliament that has itself a mandate . For the rest see my previous reply .

Well, in that case, Abhisit has a mandate.

He has formed a coalition of a majority of elected MPs of various parties.

I know you're going to come back with something about the PPP being disbanded, but please tell me how that actually makes a difference. Most of the PPP MPs did not get banned. There were by-elections for the electorates were MPs were banned. Everyone is represented.

Edited May 5, 2010 by whybother

[pornsasi]

I don´t understand the problem. Everything is done within the constitution. Every party that showed up for the election knew the rules. If you got caught vote buying, they know the punishment.

When PPP was banned, PTP put forward their candidate and the democrates their for voting in the parlament. The democrates candidate got more then 50% of votes and formed a new goverment. PPP could have dissolved the parlament before they got banned.

I don´t remember thet the smaller parties swore any oath in the election to support PPP. So my point is when you enter a game, you know the rules and have to play after them.

Yes the PPP knew the rule , and they deserved what they got , though dissolving parties is unique to Thailand , and complicate matters tremendously . Abhisit should had called for general elections , when he was elected . He himself knows that , otherwise why is he advancing the date of elections by 6 months .

[Old Man River]

I don´t understand the problem. Everything is done within the constitution. Every party that showed up for the election knew the rules. If you got caught vote buying, they know the punishment.

When PPP was banned, PTP put forward their candidate and the democrates their for voting in the parlament. The democrates candidate got more then 50% of votes and formed a new goverment. PPP could have dissolved the parlament before they got banned.

I don´t remember thet the smaller parties swore any oath in the election to support PPP. So my point is when you enter a game, you know the rules and have to play after them.

Yes the PPP knew the rule , and they deserved what they got , though dissolving parties is unique to Thailand , and complicate matters tremendously . Abhisit should had called for general elections , when he was elected . He himself knows that , otherwise why is he advancing the date of elections by 6 months .

Now you know what Abhisit is thinking?

Why advance? Because if it gets these idiots off the street without having to kill them it is the right thing to do.

BTW, since the Democrats are not allowed to campaign in the north and northeast, the elections will be delayed indefinitely. That is my opinion. I don't know what Abhisit is thinking.

[Deeral]

Jesus - some folks just don't gettit! Abhisit has no mandate - it's got little to do with how many voted, it's more to do with who.

Please you are trying to see this as one issue answers - it simply isn't that - you have to take holist look at the issues.

Honestly I've taught 12 year old kids who can get a better grasp of this than the posters here!

[TheOldWolf]

I don´t understand the problem. Everything is done within the constitution. Every party that showed up for the election knew the rules. If you got caught vote buying, they know the punishment.

When PPP was banned, PTP put forward their candidate and the democrates their for voting in the parlament. The democrates candidate got more then 50% of votes and formed a new goverment. PPP could have dissolved the parlament before they got banned.

I don´t remember thet the smaller parties swore any oath in the election to support PPP. So my point is when you enter a game, you know the rules and have to play after them.

Yes the PPP knew the rule , and they deserved what they got , though dissolving parties is unique to Thailand , and complicate matters tremendously . Abhisit should had called for general elections , when he was elected . He himself knows that , otherwise why is he advancing the date of elections by 6 months .

More then 12 month! To at least cease fire in thailand.

[whybother]

I don´t understand the problem. Everything is done within the constitution. Every party that showed up for the election knew the rules. If you got caught vote buying, they know the punishment.

When PPP was banned, PTP put forward their candidate and the democrates their for voting in the parlament. The democrates candidate got more then 50% of votes and formed a new goverment. PPP could have dissolved the parlament before they got banned.

I don´t remember thet the smaller parties swore any oath in the election to support PPP. So my point is when you enter a game, you know the rules and have to play after them.

Yes the PPP knew the rule , and they deserved what they got , though dissolving parties is unique to Thailand , and complicate matters tremendously . Abhisit should had called for general elections , when he was elected . He himself knows that , otherwise why is he advancing the date of elections by 6 months .

How does it actually complicate matters?

The only reason I can see, is because people don't actually understand what happened. They relate the disbanding to the fall of government. They THINK all the MPs were banned. They THINK that the court kicked them out of government.

The PPP COULD have called for elections knowing that they were going to be disbanded. The PTP COULD have called for elections, before the vote for a new PM since they were still in government until Abhisit was actually elected.

And as far as bringing the elections forward ... what OMR said ^.

[whybother]

Jesus - some folks just don't gettit! Abhisit has no mandate - it's got little to do with how many voted, it's more to do with who.

Please you are trying to see this as one issue answers - it simply isn't that - you have to take holist look at the issues.

Honestly I've taught 12 year old kids who can get a better grasp of this than the posters here!

WHY doesn't he have a mandate?

Did the PPP have a mandate?

[TheOldWolf]

Jesus - some folks just don't gettit! Abhisit has no mandate - it's got little to do with how many voted, it's more to do with who.

Please you are trying to see this as one issue answers - it simply isn't that - you have to take holist look at the issues.

Honestly I've taught 12 year old kids who can get a better grasp of this than the posters here!

So please tell us uneducted why Abhisit has no mandate. This is not about opinion. Its about the constitution that all parties agreed to go to election under.

[TAWP]

Now you may remove 50 Mps from the majority so that the majority becomes the minority and PM is changed

But that is not what happened.

There wasa by-elections for most banned MPs (they where from several parties btw) and if former-PPP had electoral support they would still have been almost the same number of MPs as before the banning-sweep - or even more if they had won by-elections for seats from other parties. However PPP (PTP) lost several seats in the by-elections since people perhaps was getting tired of them. And then Newin created another party on the side of PTP and jumped ship. As is their right...

[pornsasi]

No a PM dont need 51% of the vote to get a mandate , the PM can get a mandate by forming a coalition , provided that coalition comes from parties in a parliament that has itself a mandate . For the rest see my previous reply .

Well, in that case, Abhisit has a mandate.

He has formed a coalition of a majority of elected MPs of various parties.

I know you're going to come back with something about the PPP being disbanded, but please tell me how that actually makes a difference. Most of the PPP MPs did not get banned. There were by-elections for the electorates were MPs were banned. Everyone is represented.

He has no mandate . Though yes he is legally elected

This is because his coming to power resulted from MP's switching sides and new parties unknown to the electorate

at the moment of the last general elections .

[Chaimai]

Jesus - some folks just don't gettit! Abhisit has no mandate - it's got little to do with how many voted, it's more to do with who.

Please you are trying to see this as one issue answers - it simply isn't that - you have to take holist look at the issues.

Honestly I've taught 12 year old kids who can get a better grasp of this than the posters here!

I think you are aiming your skill level at too high an audience.

Try kindergarten - I think you will find a greater degree of harmony with your mental capacity.

[ChiangMaiFun]

Jesus - some folks just don't gettit! Abhisit has no mandate - it's got little to do with how many voted, it's more to do with who.

Please you are trying to see this as one issue answers - it simply isn't that - you have to take holist look at the issues.

Honestly I've taught 12 year old kids who can get a better grasp of this than the posters here!

obviously! he has NO mandate - it's the Elephant in the room

[pornsasi]

Now you may remove 50 Mps from the majority so that the majority becomes the minority and PM is changed

But that is not what happened.

There wasa by-elections for most banned MPs (they where from several parties btw) and if former-PPP had electoral support they would still have been almost the same number of MPs as before the banning-sweep - or even more if they had won by-elections for seats from other parties. However PPP (PTP) lost several seats in the by-elections since people perhaps was getting tired of them. And then Newin created another party on the side of PTP and jumped ship. As is their right...

I know the story . What you say in essence is that they lost power because of the banning-sweep , which is correct . So in essence Abhisit gained power because of a court ruling at the origin . So he has no mandate .

[whybother]

No a PM dont need 51% of the vote to get a mandate , the PM can get a mandate by forming a coalition , provided that coalition comes from parties in a parliament that has itself a mandate . For the rest see my previous reply .

Well, in that case, Abhisit has a mandate.

He has formed a coalition of a majority of elected MPs of various parties.

I know you're going to come back with something about the PPP being disbanded, but please tell me how that actually makes a difference. Most of the PPP MPs did not get banned. There were by-elections for the electorates were MPs were banned. Everyone is represented.

He has no mandate . Though yes he is legally elected

This is because his coming to power resulted from MP's switching sides and new parties unknown to the electorate

at the moment of the last general elections .

So if the PTP were still in government, then they wouldn't have a mandate, right?

Did they change sides to support the Democrats, or did they change sides immediately after the election when they decided to support the PPP?

IF they had supported the Democrats immediately after the election, would that have given the Democrats a mandate?

When Newin's group decided to support the Democrats he basically said "I don't like it, but it's for the good of the country". Whether you believe it or not is besides the point.

[TheOldWolf]

No a PM dont need 51% of the vote to get a mandate , the PM can get a mandate by forming a coalition , provided that coalition comes from parties in a parliament that has itself a mandate . For the rest see my previous reply .

Well, in that case, Abhisit has a mandate.

He has formed a coalition of a majority of elected MPs of various parties.

I know you're going to come back with something about the PPP being disbanded, but please tell me how that actually makes a difference. Most of the PPP MPs did not get banned. There were by-elections for the electorates were MPs were banned. Everyone is represented.

He has no mandate . Though yes he is legally elected

This is because his coming to power resulted from MP's switching sides and new parties unknown to the electorate

at the moment of the last general elections .

In your opinion he has no mandate because you think he should have called for a new election and you are free to have that. But you say he is legal elected under the constitution of thailand and that is more important then a personal opinion.

Everyone seems to aree on that the constitution must be changed and the goverment has been working on that for quit a while. The obstruction party PTP have said no to contribute after a phono call from Dear Leader.

[warfie]

Well mandate ia woolly expression and as far as I'm concerned it comes from the way the electorate behaved in the last general election - to state categorically as you do it comes from MPs is just not how democracies work

i'd love to know - though it's not for this thread how people think that the UK and some other democracies get their PMs - some of the theories here are downright hilarious

please if you're going to post - check out your history, constitution etc - but better still - if you have a child over 10 year old ask them - they'll have more of an idea than most on this thread.

Hello? Is anyone there? It isn't so difficult to understand. Read slowly if you must.

The voters do not select the PM. This is a basic fact. It is common to many parliamentary systems. The MPs are selected by the electorate. Then the MPs select the PM in a parliamentary vote. The only mandate a PM has is by virtue of the MPs. Those same MPs can remove that mandate by having a no confidence vote. If the majority of the MPs vote to remove the PM parliament will be dissolved. If the majority of the MPs vote in confidence of the PM then he stays Some MPs from PTP tried this and failed. Why did they fail? Because Abhisit has a parliamentary mandate.

Yes the MP's are selected by the electorate to form the parliament , fair . This parliament selected Samak , and then Somchai . Was the parliament that elected Abhisit the same as the one that was elected by the polls . Answer is NO , it was not elected in his current form by the electorate , it was doctored by a court . Now you may remove 50 Mps from the majority so that the majority becomes the minority and PM is changed and claim that the rest of MPs are elected but that is not how a democracy works . Or alternatively 50 MPs can switch side and join the opposition but that would raise so much questions in mature democracies that it is unthinkable , that the PM resulting from such a move assuming you could find any accepting the job (doubtfull) , would even pretend beeing legally elected without disolving the parliament and asking for new fresh elections . I can not even start to imagine something similar to Thailand happening in the UK .

the crooked, vote-buying MPs removed were replaced in by-elections (voted by the people)

good god... how many times does this simple fact have to be explained?

[TAWP]

Jesus, if a PM has mandate ought to be fact-based, not based on feeling or emotions...sadly several red posters disagree, hence the argument here.

[pornsasi]

The PPP COULD have called for elections knowing that they were going to be disbanded. The PTP COULD have called for elections, before the vote for a new PM since they were still in government until Abhisit was actually elected.

In democracies its not the PM that leaves that should seek a popular mandate , its the PM that arrives . You really are funny

[Insight]

I don´t understand the problem. Everything is done within the constitution. Every party that showed up for the election knew the rules. If you got caught vote buying, they know the punishment.

When PPP was banned, PTP put forward their candidate and the democrates their for voting in the parlament. The democrates candidate got more then 50% of votes and formed a new goverment. PPP could have dissolved the parlament before they got banned.

I don´t remember thet the smaller parties swore any oath in the election to support PPP. So my point is when you enter a game, you know the rules and have to play after them.

Yes the PPP knew the rule , and they deserved what they got , though dissolving parties is unique to Thailand , and complicate matters tremendously . Abhisit should had called for general elections , when he was elected . He himself knows that , otherwise why is he advancing the date of elections by 6 months .

Now you know what Abhisit is thinking?

Why advance? Because if it gets these idiots off the street without having to kill them it is the right thing to do.

BTW, since the Democrats are not allowed to campaign in the north and northeast, the elections will be delayed indefinitely. That is my opinion. I don't know what Abhisit is thinking.

I'm of the same opinion. They'll make an example of the PTP/Red Shirt areas now, highlighting every single bit of intimidation they encounter - and it won't take long.

[whybother]

The PPP COULD have called for elections knowing that they were going to be disbanded. The PTP COULD have called for elections, before the vote for a new PM since they were still in government until Abhisit was actually elected.

In democracies its not the PM that leaves that should seek a popular mandate , its the PM that arrives . You really are funny

Abhisit seeked a popular mandate when he was elected as an MP in 2007. Just because it took a while for the smaller parties to come to their senses doesn't make him any different to Samak.

[jdinasia]

No a PM dont need 51% of the vote to get a mandate , the PM can get a mandate by forming a coalition , provided that coalition comes from parties in a parliament that has itself a mandate . For the rest see my previous reply .

Well, in that case, Abhisit has a mandate.

He has formed a coalition of a majority of elected MPs of various parties.

I know you're going to come back with something about the PPP being disbanded, but please tell me how that actually makes a difference. Most of the PPP MPs did not get banned. There were by-elections for the electorates were MPs were banned. Everyone is represented.

He has no mandate . Though yes he is legally elected

This is because his coming to power resulted from MP's switching sides and new parties unknown to the electorate

at the moment of the last general elections .

In your opinion he has no mandate because you think he should have called for a new election and you are free to have that. But you say he is legal elected under the constitution of thailand and that is more important then a personal opinion.

Everyone seems to aree on that the constitution must be changed and the goverment has been working on that for quit a while. The obstruction party PTP have said no to contribute after a phono call from Dear Leader.

Huh?

Pornsasi admits that Abhisit is the PM by all legal definitions. Pornsasi ignores that in the 2007 elections that smaller parties promised their electorates that they wouldn't make a coalition government with PPP. The Dems didn't cry when this happened because that is between the people that voted for the small parties and the parties themselves. Pornsasi ignores that the burden to call a NEW election falls not on the Dems but on PPP even 1 day before they were disbanded (there is no delay on dissolving parliament).

Newin's electorate will vote his people str8 back into office. I doubt even pornsasi can argue with that. Therefore there isn't an issue with HIS electorate that he decided NOT to go back to a Thaksin party when it was dissolved.

[pornsasi]

Jesus, if a PM has mandate ought to be fact-based, not based on feeling or emotions...sadly several red posters disagree, hence the argument here.

I am not red , yellow green or blue . I just explain to you the principle of democracy in countries that have been practising it for hundreds of years . I repeat one more time , if in UK , labour was in power as a result of a coalition with the liberals , and all the sudden the liberals switched to the torries , resulting in a torry replacing the labour PM , that torry PM would immediately ask for general election , or risk endless protest in the street , with the result that in the end he would have too call election anyway and loose them

If THailand wants to copy the british system , it should copy it properly .

[monkfish]

I see we are all in elections mood.

At least this time around Junta won't be in charge of investigating election fraud cases

[whybother]

Jesus, if a PM has mandate ought to be fact-based, not based on feeling or emotions...sadly several red posters disagree, hence the argument here.

I am not red , yellow green or blue . I just explain to you the principle of democracy in countries that have been practising it for hundreds of years . I repeat one more time , if in UK , labour was in power as a result of a coalition with the liberals , and all the sudden the liberals switched to the torries , resulting in a torry replacing the labour PM , that torry PM would immediately ask for general election , or risk endless protest in the street , with the result that in the end he would have too call election anyway and loose them

If THailand wants to copy the british system , it should copy it properly .

IF the Liberals decided to change sides, they would probably have a very good reason for doing so, and they would probably have the support of the people that voted for them.

You are probably right that the Labour voters might protest, but that is because their party just lost power and they feel sorry for themselves, not because of any legal argument.

[TAWP]

Jesus, if a PM has mandate ought to be fact-based, not based on feeling or emotions...sadly several red posters disagree, hence the argument here.

I am not red , yellow green or blue . I just explain to you the principle of democracy in countries that have been practising it for hundreds of years . I repeat one more time , if in UK , labour was in power as a result of a coalition with the liberals , and all the sudden the liberals switched to the torries , resulting in a torry replacing the labour PM , that torry PM would immediately ask for general election , or risk endless protest in the street , with the result that in the end he would have too call election anyway and loose them

If THailand wants to copy the british system , it should copy it properly .

They perhaps would but is not required to. And the reason theywould is that they would hope people then voted with them to avoid the Torries getting the part of a majority-coalition.

So the ones you really should be blaming is the PPP since they knew they most likely would be dissolved and they chose to not call for new elections. They probably didn't since they knew that they where in a slump and would be losing more seats then if they rode out the wave. The by-elections surely pointed to that fact.

[jdinasia]

I don´t understand the problem. Everything is done within the constitution. Every party that showed up for the election knew the rules. If you got caught vote buying, they know the punishment.

When PPP was banned, PTP put forward their candidate and the democrates their for voting in the parlament. The democrates candidate got more then 50% of votes and formed a new goverment. PPP could have dissolved the parlament before they got banned.

I don´t remember thet the smaller parties swore any oath in the election to support PPP. So my point is when you enter a game, you know the rules and have to play after them.

Yes the PPP knew the rule , and they deserved what they got , though dissolving parties is unique to Thailand , and complicate matters tremendously . Abhisit should had called for general elections , when he was elected . He himself knows that , otherwise why is he advancing the date of elections by 6 months .

Classic example of a strawman argument ... ""

otherwise why advance the date of elections 6 months?"

Probable answers to that --

the red shirts presence in BKK are damaging the Thai economy too much

the violence of Sae Daeng's ronin have him worried that the escalation would be so bad that cracking down would kill his career and NOT cracking down would kill his career.

that he got everything he needed to when he called for Nov 14th. Army reshuffle, budget, constitution reform.

numerous other reasons --- maybe he called Thaksin and Thaksin's astrologer told Abhisit when to call new elections.......

This whole concept is so incredibly red.

[Thai at Heart]

Jesus, if a PM has mandate ought to be fact-based, not based on feeling or emotions...sadly several red posters disagree, hence the argument here.

I am not red , yellow green or blue . I just explain to you the principle of democracy in countries that have been practising it for hundreds of years . I repeat one more time , if in UK , labour was in power as a result of a coalition with the liberals , and all the sudden the liberals switched to the torries , resulting in a torry replacing the labour PM , that torry PM would immediately ask for general election , or risk endless protest in the street , with the result that in the end he would have too call election anyway and loose them

If THailand wants to copy the british system , it should copy it properly .

But that presumes that the leaders of the respective parties have some kind of ethics and principles, that I think we would all agree is distinctly lacking in Thai politics.

What we see in Thailand today is a bastardised version of any version of some of the possibly more principled western democracies, and the system is going through it's baby burps and soiled nappies to arrive at the correct result. Let us not forget that horse trading is still well alive and kicking in the more developed democracies elsewhere in the world. And those democracies don't have to worry that their armed forces get a spite of colic and spit the dummy periodically also.

Lest we forget the mess that the country that brought us the word is having it's own little tantrum right now.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/...ainst-cuts.html

Greek crisis: clashes turn deadly as thousands protest against cuts

[jdinasia]

Jesus, if a PM has mandate ought to be fact-based, not based on feeling or emotions...sadly several red posters disagree, hence the argument here.

I am not red , yellow green or blue . I just explain to you the principle of democracy in countries that have been practising it for hundreds of years . I repeat one more time , if in UK , labour was in power as a result of a coalition with the liberals , and all the sudden the liberals switched to the torries , resulting in a torry replacing the labour PM , that torry PM would immediately ask for general election , or risk endless protest in the street , with the result that in the end he would have too call election anyway and loose them

If THailand wants to copy the british system , it should copy it properly .

IF the Liberals decided to change sides, they would probably have a very good reason for doing so, and they would probably have the support of the people that voted for them.

You are probably right that the Labour voters might protest, but that is because their party just lost power and they feel sorry for themselves, not because of any legal argument.

Just for a reminder ---------

Thailand is NOT the UK. Different laws and different culture and different history.

[pornsasi]

Huh?

Pornsasi admits that Abhisit is the PM by all legal definitions. Pornsasi ignores that in the 2007 elections that smaller parties promised their electorates that they wouldn't make a coalition government with PPP. The Dems didn't cry when this happened because that is between the people that voted for the small parties and the parties themselves. Pornsasi ignores that the burden to call a NEW election falls not on the Dems but on PPP even 1 day before they were disbanded (there is no delay on dissolving parliament).

Newin's electorate will vote his people str8 back into office. I doubt even pornsasi can argue with that. Therefore there isn't an issue with HIS electorate that he decided NOT to go back to a Thaksin party when it was dissolved.

Why should PPP had asked for new general election , they had gone thru one already , they formed a coalition , did they not ?

Did Abhisit go through a general election also ? NO

[jdinasia]

I see we are all in elections mood.

At least this time around Junta won't be in charge of investigating election fraud cases

Are you suggesting that there was a Junta in Thailand after the 2007 elections and that they were in charge of the EC?