Red-Shirt Leaders To Spell Out Conditions In Joining Peace Process

[lungmi]

This is the program of the EU EOM (actually working in Sudan, Irak, Togo, Burundi, Ethopia)

The purpose of EU EOMs is to assist partner countries in their objective to hold elections of a high standard. In this context the EU EOM conducts a comprehensive analysis of the electoral process and provides an impartial and informed assessment of the elections to strengthen the confidence of voters to participate freely.

An observation mission assesses all aspects of the electoral process, its constitutional and legal framework, the delimitation of constituencies, the registration of voters and candidates, the training of election staff, voter education, media coverage, the campaign and the preparations for election day, as well as the appeals process. On Election day, observers visit pooling station in order to observe the opening, the voting, the counting and the aggregation of results.

Its fundamental principles are those of full coverage, impartiality, transparency and professionalism. Its ultimate objective is to become superfluous by entrenching democracy deep within each nation through development of national capacities.

Its main goals are the legitimisation of an electoral process, where appropriate, and the enhancement of public confidence in the electoral process, to deter fraud, to strengthen respect for human rights, and to contribute to the resolution of conflict.

............

Thailand doesn't need this program. Sure?

[Neurath]

So I assume that after their press conference they cleaned up their protest site and went home.Is that what happened?

The Prime Minister hasn't announced the date yet on when he will dissolve he House, so the red shirts haven't announced the date either when they will be going home. Abhisit wants to play a game, so let's play it.

Is it only me then that have read several times already and confirmed by several official instances that the house will be dissolved between 14 and 30 September.Or maybe they want to hear exact date,hour,minutes after the hour,seconds after the minute.....?

Why is it that Abhisit can't give an exact date? Nobody is asking it down to the second or minute, but they're asking for the exact date.

What difference does it make? An election on November 15 and there's a 15 day window, so what difference?

Why do they want an exact date?

Why should he give one? After all, it's his decision whether there's to be a shorter or longer election campaign - that's a government's prerogative.

[lungmi]

http://www.eueom.eu/home

I forgot the link.

[hextac]

So I assume that after their press conference they cleaned up their protest site and went home.Is that what happened?

The Prime Minister hasn't announced the date yet on when he will dissolve he House, so the red shirts haven't announced the date either when they will be going home. Abhisit wants to play a game, so let's play it.

Is it only me then that have read several times already and confirmed by several official instances that the house will be dissolved between 14 and 30 September.Or maybe they want to hear exact date,hour,minutes after the hour,seconds after the minute.....?

If he doesn't officially dissolve the house by naming a date, saying "we could have elections Nov 14th if..." means absolutely dick all.

Although, I've never known a politician to lie.

[cheguevara]

What difference does it make? An election on November 15 and there's a 15 day window, so what difference?

Why do they want an exact date?

Why should he give one? After all, it's his decision whether there's to be a shorter or longer election campaign - that's a government's prerogative.

It makes a big difference. Abhisit refuses to "set in stone" that he will hold an election on November 14th. He says that he will hold it ...IF his roadmap goals are met. Some of these goals are to pass laws and bills, shuffle around the army generals, etc. If he fails to meet these goals, that means there won't be elections on November 14th.

Now, if he sets a date for House dissolution, he will be forced to call an election 45-60 days after this date, no matter if he's achieved his goals or not.

See the difference and the reason as to why the red shirts won't abandon Rajprasong before Abhisit has stated the date?

[Publicus]

This is the program of the EU EOM (actually working in Sudan, Irak, Togo, Burundi, Ethopia)

The purpose of EU EOMs is to assist partner countries in their objective to hold elections of a high standard. In this context the EU EOM conducts a comprehensive analysis of the electoral process and provides an impartial and informed assessment of the elections to strengthen the confidence of voters to participate freely.

An observation mission assesses all aspects of the electoral process, its constitutional and legal framework, the delimitation of constituencies, the registration of voters and candidates, the training of election staff, voter education, media coverage, the campaign and the preparations for election day, as well as the appeals process. On Election day, observers visit pooling station in order to observe the opening, the voting, the counting and the aggregation of results.

Its fundamental principles are those of full coverage, impartiality, transparency and professionalism. Its ultimate objective is to become superfluous by entrenching democracy deep within each nation through development of national capacities.

Its main goals are the legitimisation of an electoral process, where appropriate, and the enhancement of public confidence in the electoral process, to deter fraud, to strengthen respect for human rights, and to contribute to the resolution of conflict.

............

Thailand doesn't need this program. Sure?

The country needs this so very much but won't ever accept foreign observers from Europe whether from a state, several states of Europe or from the Union itself. Forget that. Thais just won't do it, to include respected observers from the UN. Asean on long standing (rediculous) principle certainly isn't going to get involved as observers or anything else - additionally, imagine the Socialist Republic of Laos sending election observers to Thailand (or observers coming in from Burma ).

A private citizen organization such as the Carter Center of Nobel Peace Laureate Jimmy Carter would be more appropriate. Election observers of the next Thai election are absolutely required, necessary, a must. The question is which observers from which non-governmental organization would Thai pride (face) be able to swallow if even under the greatest of international advocacy and pressure on Thailand?

[brahmburgers]

The Reds' vacillations could be attributed to (pick one or more of the following):

a. not wanting to return to their prior ho hum existence.

b. segueing out of the limelight, and losing the hammer they're holding over Thailand's head.

c. their controller/paymaster in Dubai wants to milk the stand-off for as much advantage as possible.

d. a million protesters come pouring down the highway from Issan.

e. hoping for an offer of amnesty. Even though they say they don't want amnesty, they sure wouldn't mind being let off the hook. Plus, how many of their assertions have rung true in recent weeks? Start with the promise of 'peaceful rally' on to '10,000 monks', on to '1 million people', ....onward to the promise that 'Thaksin is no longer the primary issue' and 'there are no combatants in our midst.'

[basjke]

What difference does it make? An election on November 15 and there's a 15 day window, so what difference?

Why do they want an exact date?

Why should he give one? After all, it's his decision whether there's to be a shorter or longer election campaign - that's a government's prerogative.

It makes a big difference. Abhisit refuses to "set in stone" that he will hold an election on November 14th. He says that he will hold it ...IF his roadmap goals are met. Some of these goals are to pass laws and bills, shuffle around the army generals, etc. If he fails to meet these goals, that means there won't be elections on November 14th.

Now, if he sets a date for House dissolution, he will be forced to call an election 45-60 days after this date, no matter if he's achieved his goals or not.

See the difference and the reason as to why the red shirts won't abandon Rajprasong before Abhisit has stated the date?

He announced that the house will be dissolved between 14 and 30 september so that means the elections will be held at the latest 60 days after 30 september and to me that sounds like BEFORE 30 November.

In my opinion he has gone far enough with letting a bunch of criminals putting the country hostile for 2 months now.

[Publicus]

What difference does it make? An election on November 15 and there's a 15 day window, so what difference?

Why do they want an exact date?

Why should he give one? After all, it's his decision whether there's to be a shorter or longer election campaign - that's a government's prerogative.

It makes a big difference. Abhisit refuses to "set in stone" that he will hold an election on November 14th. He says that he will hold it ...IF his roadmap goals are met. Some of these goals are to pass laws and bills, shuffle around the army generals, etc. If he fails to meet these goals, that means there won't be elections on November 14th.

Now, if he sets a date for House dissolution, he will be forced to call an election 45-60 days after this date, no matter if he's achieved his goals or not.

See the difference and the reason as to why the red shirts won't abandon Rajprasong before Abhisit has stated the date?

The Reds want more than Abhisit can give, and Abhisit has given much ground already, as we know the record of Red violence, intimidation and lawlessness. The Yellows with their particular elitist/Platonic view of democracy aren't much better, just better in that the Yellows don't have the reputation for bloody violence that the Reds have in anything they do.

The question is who is to define the terms of the next election. Given the Reds nature, history, benefactor and his interests, and that the Reds don't have the interests of the nation in mind, who wants the Reds to further force and impose their own wierd definition of democracy on the country as a whole?

[Neurath]

What difference does it make? An election on November 15 and there's a 15 day window, so what difference?

Why do they want an exact date?

Why should he give one? After all, it's his decision whether there's to be a shorter or longer election campaign - that's a government's prerogative.

It makes a big difference. Abhisit refuses to "set in stone" that he will hold an election on November 14th. He says that he will hold it ...IF his roadmap goals are met. Some of these goals are to pass laws and bills, shuffle around the army generals, etc. If he fails to meet these goals, that means there won't be elections on November 14th.

Now, if he sets a date for House dissolution, he will be forced to call an election 45-60 days after this date, no matter if he's achieved his goals or not.

See the difference and the reason as to why the red shirts won't abandon Rajprasong before Abhisit has stated the date?

No, he can promise to set a date for dissolution and that will have exactly the same status as the promise of an election date. It will be a promise (conditions allowing of course.) So you're just wrong there. Next.

[lungmi]

This is the program of the EU EOM (actually working in Sudan, Irak, Togo, Burundi, Ethopia)

The purpose of EU EOMs is to assist partner countries in their objective to hold elections of a high standard. In this context the EU EOM conducts a comprehensive analysis of the electoral process and provides an impartial and informed assessment of the elections to strengthen the confidence of voters to participate freely.

An observation mission assesses all aspects of the electoral process, its constitutional and legal framework, the delimitation of constituencies, the registration of voters and candidates, the training of election staff, voter education, media coverage, the campaign and the preparations for election day, as well as the appeals process. On Election day, observers visit pooling station in order to observe the opening, the voting, the counting and the aggregation of results.

Its fundamental principles are those of full coverage, impartiality, transparency and professionalism. Its ultimate objective is to become superfluous by entrenching democracy deep within each nation through development of national capacities.

Its main goals are the legitimisation of an electoral process, where appropriate, and the enhancement of public confidence in the electoral process, to deter fraud, to strengthen respect for human rights, and to contribute to the resolution of conflict.

............

Thailand doesn't need this program. Sure?

The country needs this so very much but won't ever accept foreign observers from Europe whether from a state, several states of Europe or from the Union itself. Forget that. Thais just won't do it, to include respected observers from the UN. Asean on long standing (rediculous) principle certainly isn't going to get involved as observers or anything else - additionally, imagine the Socialist Republic of Laos sending election observers to Thailand (or observers coming in from Burma ).

A private citizen organization such as the Carter Center of Nobel Peace Laureate Jimmy Carter would be more appropriate. Election observers of the next Thai election are absolutely required, necessary, a must. The question is which observers from which non-governmental organization would Thai pride (face) be able to swallow if even under the greatest of international advocacy and pressure on Thailand?

Cambodia accepted this program already. And the constitution of Cambodia has no Death penalty , Ruanda too.

[hextac]

What difference does it make? An election on November 15 and there's a 15 day window, so what difference?

Why do they want an exact date?

Why should he give one? After all, it's his decision whether there's to be a shorter or longer election campaign - that's a government's prerogative.

It makes a big difference. Abhisit refuses to "set in stone" that he will hold an election on November 14th. He says that he will hold it ...IF his roadmap goals are met. Some of these goals are to pass laws and bills, shuffle around the army generals, etc. If he fails to meet these goals, that means there won't be elections on November 14th.

Now, if he sets a date for House dissolution, he will be forced to call an election 45-60 days after this date, no matter if he's achieved his goals or not.

See the difference and the reason as to why the red shirts won't abandon Rajprasong before Abhisit has stated the date?

He announced that the house will be dissolved between 14 and 30 september so that means the elections will be held at the latest 60 days after 30 september and to me that sounds like BEFORE 30 November.

In my opinion he has gone far enough with letting a bunch of criminals putting the country hostile for 2 months now.

There are vast differences between saying that you'll do something, saying you'll do something IF..., implying that you'll do it and ACTUALLY doing it.

[Neurath]

What difference does it make? An election on November 15 and there's a 15 day window, so what difference?

Why do they want an exact date?

Why should he give one? After all, it's his decision whether there's to be a shorter or longer election campaign - that's a government's prerogative.

It makes a big difference. Abhisit refuses to "set in stone" that he will hold an election on November 14th. He says that he will hold it ...IF his roadmap goals are met. Some of these goals are to pass laws and bills, shuffle around the army generals, etc. If he fails to meet these goals, that means there won't be elections on November 14th.

Now, if he sets a date for House dissolution, he will be forced to call an election 45-60 days after this date, no matter if he's achieved his goals or not.

See the difference and the reason as to why the red shirts won't abandon Rajprasong before Abhisit has stated the date?

He announced that the house will be dissolved between 14 and 30 september so that means the elections will be held at the latest 60 days after 30 september and to me that sounds like BEFORE 30 November.

In my opinion he has gone far enough with letting a bunch of criminals putting the country hostile for 2 months now.

There are vast differences between saying that you'll do something, saying you'll do something IF..., implying that you'll do it and ACTUALLY doing it.

Sure. Like saying you'll leave Ratchaprasong IF.....

There will be an election on November 15 (one year early) or one must be held prior to the end of 2011.

Get a grip, take a vote.

All the rest of the talk is <deleted>.

[hextac]

It makes a big difference. Abhisit refuses to "set in stone" that he will hold an election on November 14th. He says that he will hold it ...IF his roadmap goals are met. Some of these goals are to pass laws and bills, shuffle around the army generals, etc. If he fails to meet these goals, that means there won't be elections on November 14th.

Now, if he sets a date for House dissolution, he will be forced to call an election 45-60 days after this date, no matter if he's achieved his goals or not.

See the difference and the reason as to why the red shirts won't abandon Rajprasong before Abhisit has stated the date?

He announced that the house will be dissolved between 14 and 30 september so that means the elections will be held at the latest 60 days after 30 september and to me that sounds like BEFORE 30 November.

In my opinion he has gone far enough with letting a bunch of criminals putting the country hostile for 2 months now.

There are vast differences between saying that you'll do something, saying you'll do something IF..., implying that you'll do it and ACTUALLY doing it.

Sure. Like saying you'll leave Ratchaprasong IF.....

There will be an election on November 15 (one year early) or one must be held prior to the end of 2011.

Get a grip, take a vote.

All the rest of the talk is <deleted>.

Exactly, hot air and nothing more.

[way2muchcoffee]

It makes a big difference. Abhisit refuses to "set in stone" that he will hold an election on November 14th. He says that he will hold it ...IF his roadmap goals are met. Some of these goals are to pass laws and bills, shuffle around the army generals, etc. If he fails to meet these goals, that means there won't be elections on November 14th.

Now, if he sets a date for House dissolution, he will be forced to call an election 45-60 days after this date, no matter if he's achieved his goals or not.

See the difference and the reason as to why the red shirts won't abandon Rajprasong before Abhisit has stated the date?

Yes. It makes a difference. It has already been stated that the dissolution and election dates are only valid if certain conditions are met along the way. That is the road map. That is the deal. Perhaps those conditions need to be spelled out more clearly and specifically, as other posters have mentioned. But as it stands those dates are most certainly not cast in stone. Abhisit has made that much perfectly clear.

This is a gracious offer. The red shirts will have their election if they put down their guns and clean up their mess. Then they need to roll up their shirtsleeves and participate fully in the reconciliation process. If they try to play games, obstruct, and delay, then most certainly the election date will change. This is how reconciliation works.

Edited May 7, 2010 by way2muchcoffee

[Publicus]

This is the program of the EU EOM (actually working in Sudan, Irak, Togo, Burundi, Ethopia)

The purpose of EU EOMs is to assist partner countries in their objective to hold elections of a high standard. In this context the EU EOM conducts a comprehensive analysis of the electoral process and provides an impartial and informed assessment of the elections to strengthen the confidence of voters to participate freely.

An observation mission assesses all aspects of the electoral process, its constitutional and legal framework, the delimitation of constituencies, the registration of voters and candidates, the training of election staff, voter education, media coverage, the campaign and the preparations for election day, as well as the appeals process. On Election day, observers visit pooling station in order to observe the opening, the voting, the counting and the aggregation of results.

Its fundamental principles are those of full coverage, impartiality, transparency and professionalism. Its ultimate objective is to become superfluous by entrenching democracy deep within each nation through development of national capacities.

Its main goals are the legitimisation of an electoral process, where appropriate, and the enhancement of public confidence in the electoral process, to deter fraud, to strengthen respect for human rights, and to contribute to the resolution of conflict.

............

Thailand doesn't need this program. Sure?

The country needs this so very much but won't ever accept foreign observers from Europe whether from a state, several states of Europe or from the Union itself. Forget that. Thais just won't do it, to include respected observers from the UN. Asean on long standing (rediculous) principle certainly isn't going to get involved as observers or anything else - additionally, imagine the Socialist Republic of Laos sending election observers to Thailand (or observers coming in from Burma ).

A private citizen organization such as the Carter Center of Nobel Peace Laureate Jimmy Carter would be more appropriate. Election observers of the next Thai election are absolutely required, necessary, a must. The question is which observers from which non-governmental organization would Thai pride (face) be able to swallow if even under the greatest of international advocacy and pressure on Thailand?

Cambodia accepted this program already. And the constitution of Cambodia has no Death penalty , Ruanda too.

Perhaps a certain economics advisor to Cambodia who's orginally from Thailand could advise the Thai government in this matter. Thailand needs to have a government which is closer to that of Rwanda .

Seriously, your suggestion is an excellent one, but one which Thais would never accept to include the Reds especially as the Reds have their own designs on which greedy group and their benefactor must be in the the next government, the sooner the better based on the Reds' and their benefactor's interests.

[whybother]

If he doesn't officially dissolve the house by naming a date, saying "we could have elections Nov 14th if..." means absolutely dick all.

Although, I've never known a politician to lie.

He has said "elections Nov 14th if ...", which basically means dissolution "Sept 14-30 if ...". So the exact date isn't required.

What it will come down to is on the 14th people will be waiting to hear him say it, and if he doesn't say it then they will wait on the 15th and eventually, if he hasn't said it then they will hear it on the 30th.

Does it make a difference which day it is? No, because elections will still be on Nov 14th if ...

[whybother]

What difference does it make? An election on November 15 and there's a 15 day window, so what difference?

Why do they want an exact date?

Why should he give one? After all, it's his decision whether there's to be a shorter or longer election campaign - that's a government's prerogative.

It makes a big difference. Abhisit refuses to "set in stone" that he will hold an election on November 14th. He says that he will hold it ...IF his roadmap goals are met. Some of these goals are to pass laws and bills, shuffle around the army generals, etc. If he fails to meet these goals, that means there won't be elections on November 14th.

Now, if he sets a date for House dissolution, he will be forced to call an election 45-60 days after this date, no matter if he's achieved his goals or not.

See the difference and the reason as to why the red shirts won't abandon Rajprasong before Abhisit has stated the date?

What IF Abhisit "sets it in stone"? That means the reds can do what they want. They don't have to leave Ratchaprasong. They don't have to allow others to campaign in their areas. They can be disruptive for 6 months. Because it's all set in stone.

There has to be IFs.

[Jingthing]

I reckon if the elections are fairly fair, limited vote buying, and democrats able to campaign in the red empire, there is no way the reds will get the most votes this time. They have lost a lot of support with their reign of terror for years now.There's the rub. The reds have no interest in playing fairly.

[lannarebirth]

I reckon if the elections are fairly fair, limited vote buying, and democrats able to campaign in the red empire, there is no way the reds will get the most votes this time. They have lost a lot of support with their reign of terror for years now.There's the rub. The reds have no interest in playing fairly.

Here's the rub. The very feudalistic system the Reds hope to perpetuate DEMANDS they piece off the constituents in return for their loyalty. They don't know any other way to relate to each other and many don't even know why anyone would think there's anything wrong in it.

[Jingthing]

I reckon if the elections are fairly fair, limited vote buying, and democrats able to campaign in the red empire, there is no way the reds will get the most votes this time. They have lost a lot of support with their reign of terror for years now.There's the rub. The reds have no interest in playing fairly.

Here's the rub. The very feudalistic system the Reds hope to perpetuate DEMANDS they piece off the constituents in return for their loyalty. They don't know any other way to relate to each other and many don't even know why anyone would think there's anything wrong in it.

I agree. More like the mafia than democracy, eh?

[jayjay0]

Reds should be careful: Army (high ranked officers), Prem (if not dead at the time), PAD, Chuan L. and other //deleted by Admin// could NOT accept the results of the elections. Well, they dissolve the winning party, like in Burma, and that's it.

dDon't worry, the way this is going Thailand will not become Burma, is becoming Beirut

I think that the comparison to Burma would probably be insulting to them. Their military wouldn't stand around and let lawlessness prevail. Wouldn't it be funny if the PTP lost the next election? We'd see then if the reds really mean it when they say everyone should accept the result. If they have already spent their cash on the protest maybe they won't have enough to purchase an election.

Suppose next election, as before ...

The Thaksin puppet-red party gets the most votes

The democracts (or new democrats) get the second most votes

The democrats are able to form a ruling coalition with the smaller parties and lead again

Not really far fetched. They didn't accept that perfectly legal outcome last time, why would they honor it next time?

Not far fetched at all. Last time when they elected there representatives they did so with the understanding that they would not vote for the all ready rich. WRONG Money rules and the people don't count to those greedy pigs. See how many of them get reelected.

On the other hand do the red shirts have enough money left over. Please try not to beat the paranoiac point of view that says Thaksin will finance it. In my honest opinion he will be a minor part of the election. He is only a problem to those who don't like the red shirts and have no other valid reason for there dislike. I know the red shirts have many bad points but a honest appraisal of the situation will show that they are no worse than any other party.

What Thailand needs is some new people ones who care for Thailand first and primarily I give it two generations before it happens. A lot of false accusations and predigest to lose before that happens.

[hextac]

What difference does it make? An election on November 15 and there's a 15 day window, so what difference?

Why do they want an exact date?

Why should he give one? After all, it's his decision whether there's to be a shorter or longer election campaign - that's a government's prerogative.

It makes a big difference. Abhisit refuses to "set in stone" that he will hold an election on November 14th. He says that he will hold it ...IF his roadmap goals are met. Some of these goals are to pass laws and bills, shuffle around the army generals, etc. If he fails to meet these goals, that means there won't be elections on November 14th.

Now, if he sets a date for House dissolution, he will be forced to call an election 45-60 days after this date, no matter if he's achieved his goals or not.

See the difference and the reason as to why the red shirts won't abandon Rajprasong before Abhisit has stated the date?

What IF Abhisit "sets it in stone"? That means the reds can do what they want. They don't have to leave Ratchaprasong. They don't have to allow others to campaign in their areas. They can be disruptive for 6 months. Because it's all set in stone.

There has to be IFs.

If he doesn't set the dissolution date they wont leave. So what now?

[shawndoc]

Why would Thaksin only play a small part of it? Jatuporn gave an interview a few weeks into the protest and openly said the end game was to get Thanksin amnesty. Sah Daeng recently told reporters that even if the other reds called off the protest, he might not leave, as he takes his orders directly from Thaksin and doesn't have to listen to the other red leaders.

Its very clear Thaksin, despite receding from the spotlight, still plays a huge role in the current protest. What indications are there that he'd suddenly back out of Red/PPP/PTP politics now?

Here's a link to the Sah Daeng article:

http://www.thai360.com/fbb/showtopic.php?tid/537145/

The Jatuporn interview was posted here at TV.

[shawndoc]

The dissolution point is moot. The reds have already moved on and are no longer asking for that.

[hextac]

The dissolution point is moot. The reds have already moved on and are no longer asking for that.

Source?

[Publicus]

What difference does it make? An election on November 15 and there's a 15 day window, so what difference?

Why do they want an exact date?

Why should he give one? After all, it's his decision whether there's to be a shorter or longer election campaign - that's a government's prerogative.

It makes a big difference. Abhisit refuses to "set in stone" that he will hold an election on November 14th. He says that he will hold it ...IF his roadmap goals are met. Some of these goals are to pass laws and bills, shuffle around the army generals, etc. If he fails to meet these goals, that means there won't be elections on November 14th.

Now, if he sets a date for House dissolution, he will be forced to call an election 45-60 days after this date, no matter if he's achieved his goals or not.

See the difference and the reason as to why the red shirts won't abandon Rajprasong before Abhisit has stated the date?

What IF Abhisit "sets it in stone"? That means the reds can do what they want. They don't have to leave Ratchaprasong. They don't have to allow others to campaign in their areas. They can be disruptive for 6 months. Because it's all set in stone.

There has to be IFs.

Yes Abhisit must establish conditions - ifs - by which the Reds could be restrained in the no holds barrred campaign/canvassing the Reds would extend to an election from their propensities demonstrated in Pattaya, during 2009 Songkran and since to the present in central Bangkok. Thaksin and the Reds need to be in government now. They can't afford to wait until Abhisit has all his ducks in a row, to include a budget in full effect that would promote the coalition deservedly coming out ahead in an election, a military realignment that indefinitely shuts out Thaksin and his lackies, a calm and reasoned election campaign and a more stable and secure country and economy.

Abhisit has given a great deal of ground, the Reds have only seized ground. They'd do all they could to seize an election too.

The next election needs credible international observers and monitors as an absolute necessity, as few trust the political processes of old, much the Reds at work against the political processes. One additional 'if' needs to be impartial professional international observers. Don't see how Abhisit could win without credible, impartial international election observers and monitors to hold all sides accountable, accountability being something unprecedented in Thailand.

[shawndoc]

The dissolution point is moot. The reds have already moved on and are no longer asking for that.

Source?

Coverage I've seen on the Nation and the other English language site covering the reds press conference.

(I admit their coverage isn't the best, but they certainly give the impression the reds have moved on to other issues after the PM confirmed dissolution in the second half of September).

[brahmburgers]

I reckon if the elections are fairly fair, limited vote buying, and democrats able to campaign in the red empire, there is no way the reds will get the most votes this time. They have lost a lot of support with their reign of terror for years now.There's the rub. The reds have no interest in playing fairly.

Here's the rub. The very feudalistic system the Reds hope to perpetuate DEMANDS they piece off the constituents in return for their loyalty. They don't know any other way to relate to each other and many don't even know why anyone would think there's anything wrong in it.

What does "piece off the constituents" mean? ....pay them for their votes? Nothing new there.

Indeed, did Abhisit include in his 'roadmap' a pledge by Reds to not interfere with campaigning? Granted, Reds don't keep their promises and there are several Red factions that act aggressively/mob-like without their minders having direct knowledge. The closer one looks at how the Reds manifest (in political campaigns, etc) the more one sees a bunch of mobs intimidating others who don't think as they do.

[ChiangMaiFun]

I think that the comparison to Burma would probably be insulting to them. Their military wouldn't stand around and let lawlessness prevail. Wouldn't it be funny if the PTP lost the next election? We'd see then if the reds really mean it when they say everyone should accept the result. If they have already spent their cash on the protest maybe they won't have enough to purchase an election.

Suppose next election, as before ...

The Thaksin puppet-red party gets the most votes

The democracts (or new democrats) get the second most votes

The democrats are able to form a ruling coalition with the smaller parties and lead again

Not really far fetched. They didn't accept that perfectly legal outcome last time, why would they honor it next time?

For anyone who is unable to understand how that is possible they should read up on the UK elections that have just happened. Conservatives have the most seats, but Labour could stay in power with a coalition government. Lets see if CNN or the BBC call it illegitimate when they do it.

Yes exactly. The UK has been so often held up here as the icon of how it works in this type of parliamentary system,

and surprise surprise surprise, UK has a nearly identical Hung Parliament problem...

So will the BNP start taking over Trafalgar Square with Nick Clegg until Brown resigns from economic blackmail

and lets Cameron come in and become a fascist dictator.

I suspect the Brits will sort this a bit better than the Thais have....

CNN's Amanpour only asked the question:

'The opposition says your government is illegitimate, what do you have to say to that.'

Not the same thing as calling it illegitimate. Just a way to set up the question to him.

This is a ridiculous and immature analogy - Britain has only had one hung Parliament in the last 35 years and they will sort it out in a restrained and civilised way - probably Lab/Lib or another election - no comparison.