Thai PM Abhisit Still Standing After Deadly Protests

[DocHolliday]

A word to the red brethren: Game over. Period

[mazeltov]

With the prevailing 475 House seats, the government needs a minimum of 238 votes to defeat the censure. The coalition commands 275 House seats while the opposition has 200 votes

.

That means the PTP couldnt even get all their 200 MP's to vote for their motion and after all it was their motion and the onus of proof was on them.

Noticed today that jutaporn had a prison haircut... anticipation ?

What a fool he must be standing up there making an even bigger target of himself, dosent he think he's in enough trouble.

How many seats the PTP has in parliament? Do you know that? 200? is that true?

Why there are only 475 seats and not 480? What happen to the missing 5? Do you know that?

How many no-confidence votes got Samak when the Democrats launched their censure motion debate? Do you know that?

But keep talking about prison haircuts.... Are you a hairdresser or how do you know that?

[Samuian]

..........edited to shorten to the very essence....

The upper North and upper Isaan are PTP/red/Thaksin heartlands but they represent only 20% or less of the electorate.

Proof, genuine proof of this claim has still to be presented!

I always harbored doubts that this claim is genuine!

BECAUSE if one goes back how the TRT took overpower an a certain fugitive

became PM with this "overwhelming majority" - just have a good look at how this

"overwhelming majority" was reached - a big, big spending spree, party shopping!

And some massive PR campaigns in THOSE electorates for votes!

Since it has been claimed that this was the most "loved" the most "democratic" the longest

reigning PM the only one who ever made it through one full term ... an, and all these "impressive

accomplishments" of this not so impressive figure.... have a good look and add bit to bit....

How he overtook the helm at Palang Dharma (The party was known for its staunch opposition to corruption.), who was Boonchu Rojanastien (???), how he and Chalerm, later Sondhi had a fall out... why?

Because he managed to become"the most beloved politician" in Thailands history?

In the answers to these questions are quite a few solutions to the riddle of why have certain financial institutions an businesses have been targeted and attacked and others in the very neighborhood not...and much, much more how all this came together....!

somehow it's true - it's a stunning "fairytale of success" - of successfully tricking anyone involved,

into the scheme and keeping a lid on what all this was really all about until - the "bounty was brought home"..

On 23 January 2006, the Thai Telecommunication Act (2006) became effective, raising the limit on foreign holdings in telecom companies to 49%. The Act replaced the Telecom Business Law, which took effect in November 2001, and put the foreign investment cap at 25%.

On Monday January 23, 2006, the Shinawatra-family sold its remaining 49.6% stake in Shin Corporation, a leading Thai telecommunications company, to two nominees of Temasek Holdings (Cedar Holdings and Aspen Holdings). The Shinawatra and Damapong (Potjaman's maiden name) families netted about 73 billion baht (about $1.88 billion). Following Thai tax laws, they did not have to pay capital gains tax.

In an unrelated transaction, the two families had earlier not paid taxes when Thaksin transferred shares to his sister Yingluck Shinawatra and his wife, Potjaman Shinawatra, transferred shares to her brother Bannapoj Damapong. The tax exemption was granted on grounds that the transfer, at a par value of 10 baht, took place through the stock market.

well that is only the major part of his undoing.... the jump start so to say...

That Abhisit and his Government is still standing, is the FACT or better the PROOF that there was some very, very shady play by the major sponsors of the red short movement in the making and that by now, many people have understood what this "uprising" really was all about...and that this Government is not evil, but has nearly become the victim of some very evil powers, playing wreckless very, very nasty games, with the lives of innocent people - while themselves in a safe distance- shopping at Louis Vuitton in Paris!

Can anybody top this?

[jayboy]

Jayboy doesn't seem to notice that "mandate" doesn't mean the same thing --- Either Abhisit has a mandate because he represents more than 50% of the population through their elected MP's --- OR ---- no coalition government ever has a mandate

Did you not understand the point made about the British precedent of Gordon Brown? I can hardly make it simpler.

An unelected PM in a parliamentary system sooner or later needs a personal mandate which is achieved by facing the electorate.It's not a controversial point.

[Samuian]

With the prevailing 475 House seats, the government needs a minimum of 238 votes to defeat the censure. The coalition commands 275 House seats while the opposition has 200 votes

.

That means the PTP couldnt even get all their 200 MP's to vote for their motion and after all it was their motion and the onus of proof was on them.

Noticed today that jutaporn had a prison haircut... anticipation ?

What a fool he must be standing up there making an even bigger target of himself, dosent he think he's in enough trouble.

How many seats the PTP has in parliament? Do you know that? 200? is that true?

Why there are only 475 seats and not 480? What happen to the missing 5? Do you know that?

How many no-confidence votes got Samak when the Democrats launched their censure motion debate? Do you know that?

But keep talking about prison haircuts.... Are you a hairdresser or how do you know that?

calm, calm, calm down!

of 442 MPs present, Samak got 280 votes of confidence and 162 votes of no-confidence. ... an yes he was involved in the 6 October 1976 Massacre at Thammasat University in which students were protesting against the return of a military dictator. Samak played a crucial role in instigating violence against the students he called "communists". And YEs then he was the leader of the Puea Thai and ahhhh' yes PM too and Representative in a weekly TV "Cooking show" where he cooked up some spicy politicial rant... - well the PTP was nothing else then the Proxy Party of the TRT which ONLY and EXCEPTIONALLY was there to implement Mr.Thaksins policies and Family interests... and those of his supporters as he needed a stable and broad base of support... see he even gotan "absolute majority" = Genuine Democrcy?

I don't think so..... but then..

THAT is why he initially was such a great asset to the TRT lead "genuine democratization Thailand" by Thaksinland Incorp."

and the red shirt movement - that is why in western circles the very left and the very right are thought to close ranks......"brothers in arms" same cause!

"POWER"!

as well as what the PTP reepresents toady:

Puea Thai MP and core leader of the United front for Democracy against Dictatorship, Jatuporn Prompan, will definitely take part in the no-confidence debate against Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva and other ministers, the party’s MPs chairman Chalerm Yubamrung said on Wednesday.

“Mr Jatuporn has been working hard for the opposition camp. He knows well what happened during the red-shirts protests at both Phan Fa Bridge and Ratchaprasong intersection rally sites and musty therefore reveal the truth,” Mr Chalern said.

Who is Mr.Chalerm Yubamrung - remember his sons, the Taurus Pub Incident?

And in a "genuine Democracy" this is simply a NO, NO - that s why they failed and all other efforts, even there might be short term gains, they are doomed to fail Mr.Mazlatov!

no further comments....!

Edited June 2, 2010 by Samuian

[hammered]

Agh well Abhisit just survived the censure vote comfortably

comfortably?

old Samak got 280 votes of confidence, Abhisit got 246. only 6 more than half of the seats the parliament has.

+60 over against. It isnt a comparison. What Samak got in days of yore is irrelevent. It is a comfortable win in parliamentary terms in any country however you want to spin it. The coalition will be happy with this. The variance across ministers was only ten with a +40 being lowest versus against. In any country a majority of 40-60 is comfortable in anyones terms

We should now see some stability in government for a while

'comfortable win, 'in any country' - now that is a spinmeister twist.

well, what counts is what the common people on the streets of Thailand will think about it.

They know Khun Somchai got the votes of 298 MPs to become the PM (Samak 310 MPs), Abhisit has the support of 246 MP.

Comfortably for the power clinging PM himself, but will the reds shirt accept that argument it is irrelevant how their favorite team once did?

Parliamentary gamesmanship is about majority. A majority of 40-60 is comfortable in parliamentary parlance as employed by journalists and academics. Take a random look at how votes are described when they are won by that much in any parliamant. In the US senate major things are often won or lost by a majority of one. It is still a majority In many countries a government majority of 10-20 is a normal working one. The last UK labour government had a majority of about 60 and lasted a full term without any problem. No spin there man just reality. You try going and talking poltics in any country to people and argue a majority of 40-60 isnt comfortable and they would think you insane.

Also technically meaning constitutionally for the no-confidence to succeed the PTP needed 238 votes. 237 would have meant it failed even if the government had 0 votes in favour.

By the way, little point looking back to the past. Look to the future. Elections are regarded as snapshots of public opinion at any time and change almost immedaitely after they happen. The interesting stuff will be how new lines up and parties form for the next election and how that fits with the next snapshot of public opinion. Over the next few months I would think you are going to hear more about how certain PTP MPs are thinking of swopping sides, read joining CTP or BJT. We may also hear more of how a few PP MPs are thinking of realigning as they will be contesting elections against other government parties.

[Robby nz]

With the prevailing 475 House seats, the government needs a minimum of 238 votes to defeat the censure. The coalition commands 275 House seats while the opposition has 200 votes

.

That means the PTP couldnt even get all their 200 MP's to vote for their motion and after all it was their motion and the onus of proof was on them.

Noticed today that jutaporn had a prison haircut... anticipation ?

What a fool he must be standing up there making an even bigger target of himself, dosent he think he's in enough trouble.

How many seats the PTP has in parliament? Do you know that? 200? is that true?

Why there are only 475 seats and not 480? What happen to the missing 5? Do you know that?

How many no-confidence votes got Samak when the Democrats launched their censure motion debate? Do you know that?

But keep talking about prison haircuts.... Are you a hairdresser or how do you know that?

Try looking around like here:

Vote on motion of confidence scheduled at 10 am, Puea Pandin expected to stray

The House is scheduled on Wednesday at 10.00 am to cast votes on the censure and the government is expected to survive the motion of confidence although some 15 Puea Pandin MPs may opt to absent or stray from the coalition line.

With the prevailing 475 House seats, the government needs a minimum of 238 votes to defeat the censure. The coalition commands 275 House seats while the opposition has 200 votes.

Votes for each censure targets may vary as the Puea Pandin allows its coalition MPs a free vote, party spokesman Alongkot Maneekat said on Tuesday's night, just an hour before the closing of the censure debate.

"Puea Pandin will not condone corruption nor paddle a boat for thieves," Alongkot said, hinting at backing down from supporting those censured for irregularities.

Interior Minister Chaovarat Chanweerakul and Transport Minister Sophon Saram, both from Bhum Jai Thai Party, were main targets for suspected graft violations.

-- The Nation 2010-06-02

But you wouldnt believe the Nation would you? More yellow BS right?

As for missing seats possibly they were looted by the reds

[Lost in LOS]

Abhisit, his party, and elites dont stand a chance against Thaksin in major election. Is this with or without Thaskin buying the majority of his votes I doubt Abhist brought any

The only way to 'win' for them is to dissolve PueaThai party once again - I'm sure it's easy to find reason to do that.

And if they cant find, make one up. They did that before and it worked well. ;p

[whybother]

Jayboy doesn't seem to notice that "mandate" doesn't mean the same thing --- Either Abhisit has a mandate because he represents more than 50% of the population through their elected MP's --- OR ---- no coalition government ever has a mandate

Did you not understand the point made about the British precedent of Gordon Brown? I can hardly make it simpler.

An unelected PM in a parliamentary system sooner or later needs a personal mandate which is achieved by facing the electorate.It's not a controversial point.

Both Samak and Abhisit were voted in as MPs as leaders of their respective parties.

That puts both of them in the same position if they got the majority of MPs to vote for them as PM.

You can compare Somchai and Gordon Brown, as neither of them were elected MPs as the leader of their party.

Also, if you are making comparisons to British politics, after the recent election, Brown stood down as the leader of the Labour party to try and get a working coalition with the LibDems. If there had been a Labour/LibDem coalition, Brown's replacement would have been PM, even though he was "unelected", and there would be no way he would be calling a new election just so he could get a "personal mandate".

Edited June 2, 2010 by whybother

[mazeltov]

...

BECAUSE if one goes back how the TRT took overpower an a certain fugitive

became PM with this "overwhelming majority" - just have a good look at how this

"overwhelming majority" was reached - a big, big spending spree, party shopping!

And some massive PR campaigns in THOSE electorates for votes!

Since it has been claimed that this was the most "loved" the most "democratic" the longest

reigning PM the only one who ever made it through one full term ... an, and all these "impressive

accomplishments" of this not so impressive figure.... have a good look and add bit to bit....

...

On 23 January 2006, the Thai Telecommunication Act (2006) became effective, raising the limit on foreign holdings in telecom companies to 49%. The Act replaced the Telecom Business Law, which took effect in November 2001, and put the foreign investment cap at 25%.

...

massive PR campaigns

The JUnta launched a massive Anti Thaksin campaign spending millions of taxpayers money.

The Democrats misused 29 million baht of state funds in the election campaign and facing now a dissolution for it.

In PR, and while in Office - that means tax money, The Junta and the Abhisit government are the biggest spender and one of the main advertiser in Thailands media, compared to other PMs of the last 10 years.

Ranking PM's Office ad spending by government, the result is:

Surayud/CNS (2007) 1,090 million baht

Abhisit/Democrat Party (2009 est.) 978 million baht

Thaksin/TRT (2005) 795 million baht

Thaksin/TRT-Surayud/CNS (2006) 787 million baht

Samak & Somchai/PPP (2008 est.) 712 million baht

Thaksin (2004) 561 million baht

Spending per month can fluctuate (possibly affecting the quarterly estimate above for 2008-9).

Also note that ad spending is only for the PM's Office and doesn't include other ministries, agencies, or state-owned enterprises.

source

Telecom deal

Right-wing extremist, national socialist and other ultra nationalist having big problems with more foreign influence and scream high treason when the limit of foreign shareholder shop is raised from 25% to 49%.

meanwhile it was then also an opposition demand that the telecom market should be more open.

If Thaksin or the Shin Corporation had kept their share for sure people would had made an argument out of this too.

FYI. in case you didn't notice. Thaksins 'crime' isn't the topic here.

You close your eyes in front of the deadly crackdown of the protest and keep talking about Thaksin.

[jayboy]

Jayboy doesn't seem to notice that "mandate" doesn't mean the same thing --- Either Abhisit has a mandate because he represents more than 50% of the population through their elected MP's --- OR ---- no coalition government ever has a mandate

Did you not understand the point made about the British precedent of Gordon Brown? I can hardly make it simpler.

An unelected PM in a parliamentary system sooner or later needs a personal mandate which is achieved by facing the electorate.It's not a controversial point.

Both Samak and Abhisit were voted in as MPs as leaders of their respective parties.

That puts both of them in the same position if they got the majority of MPs to vote for them as PM.

You can compare Somchai and Gordon Brown, as neither of them were elected MPs as the leader of their party.

Also, if you are making comparisons to British politics, after the recent election, Brown stood down as the leader of the Labour party to try and get a working coalition with the LibDems. If there had been a Labour/LibDem coalition, Brown's replacement would have been PM, even though he was "unelected", and there would be no way he would be calling a new election just so he could get a "personal mandate".

There is a huge pressure for an unelected PM to obtain a personal mandate.If in the hypothesis you present of a Labour/Lib Dem coalition, Brown's replacement would have been steadily weakened without such a mandate through a general election victory.It was a subject of much comment in the British press.In the British circumstances such a Labour led victory was of course unlikely in the near to medium term.It was one of the reasons many Labour grandees were very unhappy with the prospect of say David Miliband as a PM with no personal mandate.It's one of the main reasons the prospect of a Labour led coalition came to nothing.

[gl9999]

...

BECAUSE if one goes back how the TRT took overpower an a certain fugitive

became PM with this "overwhelming majority" - just have a good look at how this

"overwhelming majority" was reached - a big, big spending spree, party shopping!

And some massive PR campaigns in THOSE electorates for votes!

Since it has been claimed that this was the most "loved" the most "democratic" the longest

reigning PM the only one who ever made it through one full term ... an, and all these "impressive

accomplishments" of this not so impressive figure.... have a good look and add bit to bit....

...

On 23 January 2006, the Thai Telecommunication Act (2006) became effective, raising the limit on foreign holdings in telecom companies to 49%. The Act replaced the Telecom Business Law, which took effect in November 2001, and put the foreign investment cap at 25%.

...

massive PR campaigns

The JUnta launched a massive Anti Thaksin campaign spending millions of taxpayers money.

The Democrats misused 29 million baht of state funds in the election campaign and facing now a dissolution for it.

In PR, and while in Office - that means tax money, The Junta and the Abhisit government are the biggest spender and one of the main advertiser in Thailands media, compared to other PMs of the last 10 years.

Ranking PM's Office ad spending by government, the result is:

Surayud/CNS (2007) 1,090 million baht

Abhisit/Democrat Party (2009 est.) 978 million baht

Thaksin/TRT (2005) 795 million baht

Thaksin/TRT-Surayud/CNS (2006) 787 million baht

Samak & Somchai/PPP (2008 est.) 712 million baht

Thaksin (2004) 561 million baht

Spending per month can fluctuate (possibly affecting the quarterly estimate above for 2008-9).

Also note that ad spending is only for the PM's Office and doesn't include other ministries, agencies, or state-owned enterprises.

source

Telecom deal

Right-wing extremist, national socialist and other ultra nationalist having big problems with more foreign influence and scream high treason when the limit of foreign shareholder shop is raised from 25% to 49%.

meanwhile it was then also an opposition demand that the telecom market should be more open.

If Thaksin or the Shin Corporation had kept their share for sure people would had made an argument out of this too.

FYI. in case you didn't notice. Thaksins 'crime' isn't the topic here.

You close your eyes in front of the deadly crackdown of the protest and keep talking about Thaksin.

The protests were about Thaksin. He financed it. Of course we keep talking about him. Using your words, you close your eyes in front of the killing of 3000 Thais and just keep talking about the 'deadly crackdown' killing 80. Do the maths.

[jdinasia]

Why didn't PTP get 200 votes AGAINST the government on any vote?

Life is pretty good for the government and pretty bad for the Reds and their political arm the PTP right now.

PTP members did vote more strongly againt what they see as corruption than they did against the government's use of force. (Why do I see that as a GOOD thing? --- oh yeah! Voting against even perceived corruption is a great thing!)

[neverdie]

1 post referring to an unknown person named "Thugsin" deleted.

[pedro01]

A word to the red brethren: Game over. Period

I doubt it.

I presume this censure was part of the backup plan in case dissolution failed.

No dissolution + violence = censure.

So - now the tactics have to change.

[whybother]

Jayboy doesn't seem to notice that "mandate" doesn't mean the same thing --- Either Abhisit has a mandate because he represents more than 50% of the population through their elected MP's --- OR ---- no coalition government ever has a mandate

Did you not understand the point made about the British precedent of Gordon Brown? I can hardly make it simpler.

An unelected PM in a parliamentary system sooner or later needs a personal mandate which is achieved by facing the electorate.It's not a controversial point.

Both Samak and Abhisit were voted in as MPs as leaders of their respective parties.

That puts both of them in the same position if they got the majority of MPs to vote for them as PM.

You can compare Somchai and Gordon Brown, as neither of them were elected MPs as the leader of their party.

Also, if you are making comparisons to British politics, after the recent election, Brown stood down as the leader of the Labour party to try and get a working coalition with the LibDems. If there had been a Labour/LibDem coalition, Brown's replacement would have been PM, even though he was "unelected", and there would be no way he would be calling a new election just so he could get a "personal mandate".

There is a huge pressure for an unelected PM to obtain a personal mandate.If in the hypothesis you present of a Labour/Lib Dem coalition, Brown's replacement would have been steadily weakened without such a mandate through a general election victory.It was a subject of much comment in the British press.In the British circumstances such a Labour led victory was of course unlikely in the near to medium term.It was one of the reasons many Labour grandees were very unhappy with the prospect of say David Miliband as a PM with no personal mandate.It's one of the main reasons the prospect of a Labour led coalition came to nothing.

Both Samak and Abhisit were both ELECTED as leaders of their party.

Both of them became PM with the help of a coalition.

How do you say that Samak was "elected" but Abhisit was not "elected"?

There is no requirement to call an election to get a mandate to govern the country. All you need is a majority.

In most places, politicians want a mandate to make big changes, so they campaign on those changes, and if they get elected that gives them the mandate. If they haven't campaigned for some change, then it's generally seen that they don't have a mandate to make that change (but there is nothing stopping them from doing it anyway - except the next election).

Where parties have a choice of when elections are called (eg US President - no choice with set term, Aus/UK/Thai PM - choice with maximum length term), they will call elections when it suits them best, regardless of who is leader and whether they were "elected by the people". Even when a PM "elected by the people" becomes unpopular during his term, there is still no requirement for him to call an election.

Bottom line - there is NO requirement or reason why Abhisit has to call an election. He is an elected MP and he was elected PM by the elected MPs. Whether there is "huge pressure" or not, he can call an election whenever he wants between now and December 2011.

[yoshiwara]

Abhisit, his party, and elites dont stand a chance against Thaksin in major election.

The only way to 'win' for them is to dissolve PueaThai party once again - I'm sure it's easy to find reason to do that.

And if they cant find, make one up. They did that before and it worked well. ;p

Would your predictions be as accurate as the prediction of a million reds going to Bangkok?

[SomTumTiger]

A word to the red brethren: Game over. Period

I doubt it.

I presume this censure was part of the backup plan in case dissolution failed.

No dissolution + violence = censure.

So - now the tactics have to change.

Tactics - LOL. FAIL tactics

[mazeltov]

'comfortable win, 'in any country' - now that is a spinmeister twist.

well, what counts is what the common people on the streets of Thailand will think about it.

They know Khun Somchai got the votes of 298 MPs to become the PM (Samak 310 MPs), Abhisit has the support of 246 MP.

Comfortably for the power clinging PM himself, but will the reds shirt accept that argument it is irrelevant how their favorite team once did?

Parliamentary gamesmanship is about majority. A majority of 40-60 is comfortable in parliamentary parlance as employed by journalists and academics. Take a random look at how votes are described when they are won by that much in any parliamant. In the US senate major things are often won or lost by a majority of one. It is still a majority In many countries a government majority of 10-20 is a normal working one. The last UK labour government had a majority of about 60 and lasted a full term without any problem. No spin there man just reality. You try going and talking poltics in any country to people and argue a majority of 40-60 isnt comfortable and they would think you insane.

Also technically meaning constitutionally for the no-confidence to succeed the PTP needed 238 votes. 237 would have meant it failed even if the government had 0 votes in favour.

...

Again try to see it with some red shirt or common man from the Thai street Eyes and not from your position of an "independent and neutral" observer or that of a yellow BS meister.

Declaring the red shirts favorite team results for irrelevant in one thing, now to argue that such opionion would be insane is another. this way reconciliation will fail.

Abhisits majority is maybe a stable one, but one that splits the country in two parts and not one that brings peace to the country, how ever smart you wanna spin it.

check this article http://paidoo.net/article/1924298.html

its about the results from a public opinion poll from january 2010. Reliable like any other polls that get published from month to month by the different sources and of course things have changes over the time.

One interesting thing is that people weren't only asked for what party they would vote, but also for what party they would never vote.

[hammered]

'comfortable win, 'in any country' - now that is a spinmeister twist.

well, what counts is what the common people on the streets of Thailand will think about it.

They know Khun Somchai got the votes of 298 MPs to become the PM (Samak 310 MPs), Abhisit has the support of 246 MP.

Comfortably for the power clinging PM himself, but will the reds shirt accept that argument it is irrelevant how their favorite team once did?

Parliamentary gamesmanship is about majority. A majority of 40-60 is comfortable in parliamentary parlance as employed by journalists and academics. Take a random look at how votes are described when they are won by that much in any parliamant. In the US senate major things are often won or lost by a majority of one. It is still a majority In many countries a government majority of 10-20 is a normal working one. The last UK labour government had a majority of about 60 and lasted a full term without any problem. No spin there man just reality. You try going and talking poltics in any country to people and argue a majority of 40-60 isnt comfortable and they would think you insane.

Also technically meaning constitutionally for the no-confidence to succeed the PTP needed 238 votes. 237 would have meant it failed even if the government had 0 votes in favour.

...

Again try to see it with some red shirt or common man from the Thai street Eyes and not from your position of an "independent and neutral" observer or that of a yellow BS meister.

Declaring the red shirts favorite team results for irrelevant in one thing, now to argue that such opionion would be insane is another. this way reconciliation will fail.

Abhisits majority is maybe a stable one, but one that splits the country in two parts and not one that brings peace to the country, how ever smart you wanna spin it.

check this article http://paidoo.net/article/1924298.html

its about the results from a public opinion poll from january 2010. Reliable like any other polls that get published from month to month by the different sources and of course things have changes over the time.

One interesting thing is that people weren't only asked for what party they would vote, but also for what party they would never vote.

I have no interest in seeing it from a red or yellow extremist spin. The people will get their chance to say what they think sometime in the next 19 months. Then a new government and probably another coalition one will be formed. I'll await the outcome of that. Right now whether you have an Abhisit or Chalerm led government will result in a significant minority being angry

[mazeltov]

With your friends the PT silenced for a while, Abhisit can continue his reconciliation process. Think positive Mazeltov!

We dont have to listen to Prime Minister Chalerm and his murdureous crew!

silenced by the deadly crackdown? You mean killing your opposition is the way to reconciliation? positive thinking?

But what is about "his murdureous [sic] crew"??? Care to explain? Can you tell me more about it?

[Rucharee]

With your friends the PT silenced for a while, Abhisit can continue his reconciliation process. Think positive Mazeltov!

We dont have to listen to Prime Minister Chalerm and his murdureous crew!

silenced by the deadly crackdown? You mean killing your opposition is the way to reconciliation? positive thinking?

But what is about "his murdureous [sic] crew"??? Care to explain? Can you tell me more about it?

You mean killing your opposition is the way to reconciliation?

Yes, if you killed the bad guys (like the red-shirts) and drug dealers.

[ozzieman05]

Well its all over but the shouting The Fat Lady has done her Song

This was the day or the vote, similar to a vote day for MP's

The complaint

No Confidence in the PM, this would be a test in how things alre looking for the future

Has the last 2 months showed the PM as a Thug or a hero

There are 200 members in the opposition

and they only got 186 vote

11 of them walked out of the house to show they where not totally on the side of the red shirts

But did not want to show them selves as supporting the PM

That left 4 members of the opposition who must have crossed the floor to show their support

With this behind us

we move on to the next step

a signed partition asking for a vote of No Confidence is many of the Opposition

If this goes to Parliment what is good for the goose is good for the gander

As the Parliament now has the numbers

How many member of the opposition will hit the fan

Final outcome

FINAL OUTCOME

DOUBLE STANDARDS

the Government did no loose any member, why should we

[mazeltov]

With the prevailing 475 House seats, the government needs a minimum of 238 votes to defeat the censure. The coalition commands 275 House seats while the opposition has 200 votes

.

That means the PTP couldnt even get all their 200 MP's to vote for their motion and after all it was their motion and the onus of proof was on them.

Noticed today that jutaporn had a prison haircut... anticipation ?

What a fool he must be standing up there making an even bigger target of himself, dosent he think he's in enough trouble.

How many seats the PTP has in parliament? Do you know that? 200? is that true?

Why there are only 475 seats and not 480? What happen to the missing 5? Do you know that?

How many no-confidence votes got Samak when the Democrats launched their censure motion debate? Do you know that?

But keep talking about prison haircuts.... Are you a hairdresser or how do you know that?

Try looking around like here:

[ snip full q_uote of a The Nation article]

But you wouldnt believe the Nation would you? More yellow BS right?

As for missing seats possibly they were looted by the reds

The link to The Nation article is here:

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/home/Vote-...u-30130710.html

Trusting in printed numbers in a The Nation article? You must be a new reader. That is also not a question of red or yellow but one of reliable and accurate journalism.

Sorry, the Nation article don't answered the question how many seats the PTP have in parliament.

According to this source*:

http://mp.parliament.go.th/biographical/fr...PersonList.aspx

it are 189 seats.

200 is wrong.

so you are clueless about the missing seats?

The missing seats were stolen from the electorate. That are former party list PPP seats that got not refilled with by-election after the PPP dissolution. What means the people who voted for them are not more represented in the parliament.

The Nation article has also not the answer why a haircut is so important for you.

*note: there are different figures between the english and the that language version. also for the total number of MPs. But it is still a better source than The Nation.

[losworld]

Thailand is actually fortunate to have such a leader. In a land of slow change he is undoubtedly the best bet for peaceful reform and advancement. I hope Thais can put aside their differences and move forward.

[mazeltov]

Abhisit, his party, and elites dont stand a chance against Thaksin in major election.

The only way to 'win' for them is to dissolve PueaThai party once again - I'm sure it's easy to find reason to do that.

And if they cant find, make one up. They did that before and it worked well. ;p

Would your predictions be as accurate as the prediction of a million reds going to Bangkok?

Wait for June 24 peoples movement, they will show up all over the country on June 24.

Anyway the only way to find out which political wing, which party, is favoured by the electorate are elections.

And we all know what Abhisit thinks about elections and what he does to avoid them.

[Publicus]

This vote clears the way for the government for the remainder of the year, with probably another unsuccessful no confidence vote again early next year, which would be good because a stable government is an absolute necessity given the instability of the society. This also should help the Baht and foreign investment.

We recall those posters who since late in 2008 were counting the weeks until the Abhisit government would fall...these folk have accumulated a lot of weeks between then and now with more yet to come. 

Time is absolutely necessary to dismantle the Red Machine because we've entered into a new dimension in politics, in which vote buying is likely to be surpassed by threats to burn down your village if you don't vote Red.  

 

[mazeltov]

Abhisit, his party, and elites dont stand a chance against Thaksin in major election.

The only way to 'win' for them is to dissolve PueaThai party once again - I'm sure it's easy to find reason to do that.

And if they cant find, make one up. They did that before and it worked well. ;p

It are the Democrats that will mostly likely dissolved after the 12. August.

There is a confidence of 90% that exactly that will happen, because the evidence in the 258 million donation case and the 29 million misused funds case us pretty clear. (Thai Rath article in google cache)

That comes from Maj-Gen Kittisak Ratprasert, he is very far from the suspicion to be a red shirt propaganda clown. He comes more from the inner circle of the 'power'.

There will be new by-elections, but party list seats like the one of Abhisit will not get refilled and without them the new-"democrats" will not be able to get a majority again to form a government.

[KireB]

With your friends the PT silenced for a while, Abhisit can continue his reconciliation process. Think positive Mazeltov!

We dont have to listen to Prime Minister Chalerm and his murdureous crew!

silenced by the deadly crackdown? You mean killing your opposition is the way to reconciliation? positive thinking?

But what is about "his murdureous [sic] crew"??? Care to explain? Can you tell me more about it?

Thank you for correcting my spelling. Seems you're quite useful after all.

Abut your reading skills I do have my doubts though.

Do we really have to explain what kind of man Chalerm is? Why dont you google: ' Chalerm son(s) killing', and find out for yourself.

Lovely Red family those Yoobamrungs.

[gl9999]

Abhisit, his party, and elites dont stand a chance against Thaksin in major election.

The only way to 'win' for them is to dissolve PueaThai party once again - I'm sure it's easy to find reason to do that.

And if they cant find, make one up. They did that before and it worked well. ;p

It are the Democrats that will mostly likely dissolved after the 12. August.

There is a confidence of 90% that exactly that will happen, because the evidence in the 258 million donation case and the 29 million misused funds case us pretty clear. (Thai Rath article in google cache)

That comes from Maj-Gen Kittisak Ratprasert, he is very far from the suspicion to be a red shirt propaganda clown. He comes more from the inner circle of the 'power'.

There will be new by-elections, but party list seats like the one of Abhisit will not get refilled and without them the new-"democrats" will not be able to get a majority again to form a government.

The Democrats being dissolved is wishful thinking on the part of Red Shit supporters. The Democrats are now sitting pretty and Prime Minister Abhisit has come out of this crisis smelling like a bed of roses. No way will they get dissolved.

I will not comment on the courts here since it's against forum rules but I can safely say unless something extraordinary happens, there is 0% chance the Democrat party is dissolved.