I'll Opt For Losing Election If It Restores Peace: Abhisit

[OzMick]

I have referred back to Mr Deeral's post and I think the critical section that you have overlooked is "he has no true MANDATE and has made no attempt to get one........" The critical word of course is "true" which is of course subjective to the views of the beholder.

this statement admits that Abhisit does have a mandate, but Deeral seems to think that after winning power, A should have immediately held another election to right the grievous wrong inflicted on the Taksin sychophants - why should they lose power just because they were caught committing electoral fraud, and then lost the confidence of the majority of elected MPs.

The fact that another unnecessary election would have cost billions of baht, and would be an act no sane politician would consider, is irrelevant. The fact that no other democratic govts. have expressed concern over the Democrat coalition's mandate is also irrelevant. It is not a TRUE mandate, because the loser's don't have it.

[OzMick]

As ever the argument is lost here in a series of facile posts. You have failed completely to address the point and are merely giving other instances that you think might be connected to my argument.please try and comprehend the initial statement and if you have a contrary opinion post it. At present your are not presenting an opinion that is contrary to mine so how can I possible answer you other than to point out that you and "whybother" are not on the same topic as me.

No - I don't think the point has been missed at all.

- Your point is that the current government does not have "the mandate of the people" and the last ones did.

- I'm saying that no Thai government has ever had the mandate of the people.

- whybother is saying that their is no difference in relationships of the last 4 governments and the mandate of the people, which you do not subscribe to.

This is where the contrary opinions fall.

I think the difference is that the previous governments won the most seats, although not enough to form the Govt they still won the most seats out of any party and quite rightly went on to form coalitions and form the government, however the dems fell short of winning the most seats so there is some level of unfairness in the fact that they are now the government, added to the fact they are the government only because the government at that time were disbanded for vote buying, while the dems were also found guilty of vote buying but not disbanded.

I realize you are talking about the mandate however but we could argue that the PPP/TRT did have the mandate by virtue of the fact they held the most seats, the dems were only handed that mandate after the largest party in parliament were disbanded, it would be fair to say that more constituencies did not vote for their representative and therefore do not want them in power, they voted for the party that eventually won most seats and therefore handed them the mandate, we could say they won the mandate, while the dems had it handed to them.

You get a mandate by forming a coalition with the MAJORITY of seats. It doesn't matter a rodent's anus who wins the most seats, the govt is the team with the majority.

Very few MPs lost their seats when TRT were disbanded, certainly not enough to change the end result. PTP could not convince enough other party MPs to support them. Apparently red kwai have difficulty understanding this, and their confusion is increased by Thaksin's paid political agitators distorting the facts.

[jayboy]

I have referred back to Mr Deeral's post and I think the critical section that you have overlooked is "he has no true MANDATE and has made no attempt to get one........" The critical word of course is "true" which is of course subjective to the views of the beholder.

this statement admits that Abhisit does have a mandate, but Deeral seems to think that after winning power, A should have immediately held another election to right the grievous wrong inflicted on the Taksin sychophants - why should they lose power just because they were caught committing electoral fraud, and then lost the confidence of the majority of elected MPs.

The fact that another unnecessary election would have cost billions of baht, and would be an act no sane politician would consider, is irrelevant. The fact that no other democratic govts. have expressed concern over the Democrat coalition's mandate is also irrelevant. It is not a TRUE mandate, because the loser's don't have it.

A cool appraisal of the history might have prevented some of your most egregious errors.While Abhisit's government has a legal mandate, the moral authority for power is lacking - given the criminality of the 2006 coup, the involvement in disgusting money politics with some of the sleaziest elements, the "fixed" constitution and the overt judicialisation of politics to serve the greedy corporate,military and feudal elite.Above all the forces which guided Abhisit to power had an almost unqualified contempt for the wishes of the Thai people.Now Abhisit himself isn't a bad fellow and although guilty of being something of a puppet is guided by some decent instincts.I haven't lost faith in him - though the creepy foreign reactionaries who support the criminals who defied the verdict of the Thai people at elections frankly turn the stomach.In most cases they are just ignorant and / or thick so I suppose one should grant some latitude.

[thaihome]

I think the difference is that the previous governments won the most seats, although not enough to form the Govt they still won the most seats out of any party and quite rightly went on to form coalitions and form the government, however the dems fell short of winning the most seats so there is some level of unfairness in the fact that they are now the government, added to the fact they are the government only because the government at that time were disbanded for vote buying, while the dems were also found guilty of vote buying but not disbanded.

I realize you are talking about the mandate however but we could argue that the PPP/TRT did have the mandate by virtue of the fact they held the most seats, the dems were only handed that mandate after the largest party in parliament were disbanded, it would be fair to say that more constituencies did not vote for their representative and therefore do not want them in power, they voted for the party that eventually won most seats and therefore handed them the mandate, we could say they won the mandate, while the dems had it handed to them.

The EC issued 4 yellow cards to winning Democrat candidates and some 8 to winning PPP candidates. In addition 4 red cards issued to PPP candidates with none to Democrats. The PPP’s problem was one of the red cards was given to the deputy leader Yongyuth Tiyaphairat who was video taped giving money to local government officials to pass out to voters. This is the act that got the PPP dissolved resulting in 22 PPP MP's being removed. By-elections were held in January 2008 to replace the constituency MP's (most were actually party list) and the new party, PTP, got about 7 of those with the BJT and the Democrats gaining several more seats in that by-election.

You also mention voters voting for a party. In fact, voters vote twice. They vote for a slate of local candidates for the constituency MP's, which indeed the PPP won the most, and then voters vote for a party in order to select the proportional MP's. In this voting the PPP and Democrats were virtually tied, with the Democrats very slightly ahead.

One could make a very good argument that the only "popular mandate" that could come out of the election would be the party vote for the proportional MP's. The Democrats actually won that with a very slim margin.

What it comes down to is this discussion on “popular mandate” is basically a red herring argument to take attention away from the fact the Democrats and their coalition partners hold the majority of the seats in the House of Representatives and every one of those MP’s have been elected by the voters of the Thailand. The term for those elected MP’s does not expire until December 2011.

TH

[chantorn]

Anyone still believing a single word coming out of Abhisit's mouth can only be classified as a delusional fool .

hahaha You funny guy. Now get back on your meds, OK?

Mark always speak the truth, and nothing but the truth.

That's the reason why he never commended about all those corruption scandals.

[rixalex]

To the critics, what would you have had him say?

Perhaps something like Thaksin, if my side doesn't win, we will destroy the country and burn down Bangkok?

Hi Jingthing

Another really telling point .......except .......... erh.........."Thaksins side" has won all recent elections ... well all this century anyway.

Thaksin's side won one election - the election of 2005. All the other elections, no single party was able to garner enough votes for a majority. This is what is required to win.

[Jingthing]

Abhisit won the last election legally according to the parliamentary system here, forming a coalition government. However, it is true, he has always lacked a totally clear moral mandate which he would have if his party had actually led the vote count. He knows this, of course. He has a very good chance of pulling that off the next time.

Edited October 28, 2010 by Jingthing

[rixalex]

A cool appraisal of the history might have prevented some of your most egregious errors.While Abhisit's government has a legal mandate, the moral authority for power is lacking - given the criminality of the 2006 coup, the involvement in disgusting money politics with some of the sleaziest elements, the "fixed" constitution and the overt judicialisation of politics to serve the greedy corporate,military and feudal elite.Above all the forces which guided Abhisit to power had an almost unqualified contempt for the wishes of the Thai people.Now Abhisit himself isn't a bad fellow and although guilty of being something of a puppet is guided by some decent instincts.I haven't lost faith in him - though the creepy foreign reactionaries who support the criminals who defied the verdict of the Thai people at elections frankly turn the stomach.In most cases they are just ignorant and / or thick so I suppose one should grant some latitude.

Interesting points, much of which i agree with.

One thing i will say though regarding legal mandate versus moral authority...

Legal mandates are clear black and white matters that can be proven one way or the other ie either something is legal or it is not. Moral authorities on the other hand come down to personal feelings. It's not something that can be easily, if at all, measured or judged upon.

My own feeling is that Abhisit does lack a degree of moral authority, but then again i thought the same of Thaksin right back at the beginning of his tenure when he so blatantly hid his assets. Legally he was cleared but morally i think perhaps he still had some answering to do. At the end of the day though, i didn't expect Thaksin to stand down then and call for elections because of it, no more than i expected Abhisit to do so because of the convoluted manner in which he came to power.

[rubl]

There are many things on different levels going on and this statement needs to be viewed in context.

There is what happens with the Dem disolution after which Abhisit may be out of the game or not. If he is out this statement is irrelevant. If he is still in it could be seen as a gambit to lessen the red backlash if the Dems survive

Then there is the election. The real potential flash points are not who wins the election , but what they do. If PTP wins an overall majority and tries bringing Thaksin back or amnestying the more extreme red leaders there will be a backlash from several directions. If the Dems and their buddies win the election - meaning between them they can put together a coalition regardless of what party won the most seats - the red shirts will go bonkers as they believe (erroniously by international standards) democracy means only the party winning the most seats can form a government. The no overall majority option tends to be one most think will happen. However, whatever the outcome there wont be peace unless all the different sides in the power games, and there are way more than 2, agree on a set of groundrules and red lines before the election.

Try finding anyone who is optomistic about the upcomign election or its possible cancellation as even many Thai freinds predict

THe last time a party was dissolved there wasn't an election.

True, but no need either. Most PPP MP's moved into PTP the next day. There have been various by-elections for cases where an MP was disqualified or died in office. On the 30th of this month we will have such an election in Sura Thani.

[OzMick]

I have referred back to Mr Deeral's post and I think the critical section that you have overlooked is "he has no true MANDATE and has made no attempt to get one........" The critical word of course is "true" which is of course subjective to the views of the beholder.

this statement admits that Abhisit does have a mandate, but Deeral seems to think that after winning power, A should have immediately held another election to right the grievous wrong inflicted on the Taksin sychophants - why should they lose power just because they were caught committing electoral fraud, and then lost the confidence of the majority of elected MPs.

The fact that another unnecessary election would have cost billions of baht, and would be an act no sane politician would consider, is irrelevant. The fact that no other democratic govts. have expressed concern over the Democrat coalition's mandate is also irrelevant. It is not a TRUE mandate, because the loser's don't have it.

A cool appraisal of the history might have prevented some of your most egregious errors.While Abhisit's government has a legal mandate, the moral authority for power is lacking - given the criminality of the 2006 coup, the involvement in disgusting money politics with some of the sleaziest elements, the "fixed" constitution and the overt judicialisation of politics to serve the greedy corporate,military and feudal elite.Above all the forces which guided Abhisit to power had an almost unqualified contempt for the wishes of the Thai people.Now Abhisit himself isn't a bad fellow and although guilty of being something of a puppet is guided by some decent instincts.I haven't lost faith in him - though the creepy foreign reactionaries who support the criminals who defied the verdict of the Thai people at elections frankly turn the stomach.In most cases they are just ignorant and / or thick so I suppose one should grant some latitude.

Again the mandate is accepted as legal, but "moral" issues have to be considered; which of course are subjective. To you, the coup was criminally wrong; to me removing an aspiring dictator who refused to call elections after his mandate had expired, and was actively loading the police and army with his family and cronies, was a distasteful but necessary step, in line with removing cancerous tissue. After the coup there was an election, after which was a cleansing of those caught in political and electoral fraud, after which the current govt was formed by a majority of elected MPs, who each received a majority of votes in their electorate. How is that against the wishes of the Thai people?

It doesn't matter if you like it or not, that is the way it is.

Foreign reactionaries? Which communist manifesto did you drag that from? Please point out the egregious errors.

Edited October 28, 2010 by OzMick

[SergeiY]

The EC issued 4 yellow cards to winning Democrat candidates and some 8 to winning PPP candidates. In addition 4 red cards issued to PPP candidates with none to Democrats. The PPP’s problem was one of the red cards was given to the deputy leader Yongyuth Tiyaphairat who was video taped giving money to local government officials to pass out to voters. This is the act that got the PPP dissolved resulting in 22 PPP MP's being removed. By-elections were held in January 2008 to replace the constituency MP's (most were actually party list) and the new party, PTP, got about 7 of those with the BJT and the Democrats gaining several more seats in that by-election.

Yellow cards mean the candidate isn't banned but by-election are hold were the same candidate can run again, right?

How did the Dems and the PPP candidates in these by-election. Who won again and who lost?

In the January 2009 (not 2008) by-election after the dissolution of the PPP and two other parties, the new PTP could not win all seats again, but i think they lost seats only to the smaller parties and not the Democrats, meanwhile the Democrats won their additional new seats in a constituency where before one of the disbanded smaller parties candidate had won the seat.

[jayboy]

I have referred back to Mr Deeral's post and I think the critical section that you have overlooked is "he has no true MANDATE and has made no attempt to get one........" The critical word of course is "true" which is of course subjective to the views of the beholder.

this statement admits that Abhisit does have a mandate, but Deeral seems to think that after winning power, A should have immediately held another election to right the grievous wrong inflicted on the Taksin sychophants - why should they lose power just because they were caught committing electoral fraud, and then lost the confidence of the majority of elected MPs.

The fact that another unnecessary election would have cost billions of baht, and would be an act no sane politician would consider, is irrelevant. The fact that no other democratic govts. have expressed concern over the Democrat coalition's mandate is also irrelevant. It is not a TRUE mandate, because the loser's don't have it.

A cool appraisal of the history might have prevented some of your most egregious errors.While Abhisit's government has a legal mandate, the moral authority for power is lacking - given the criminality of the 2006 coup, the involvement in disgusting money politics with some of the sleaziest elements, the "fixed" constitution and the overt judicialisation of politics to serve the greedy corporate,military and feudal elite.Above all the forces which guided Abhisit to power had an almost unqualified contempt for the wishes of the Thai people.Now Abhisit himself isn't a bad fellow and although guilty of being something of a puppet is guided by some decent instincts.I haven't lost faith in him - though the creepy foreign reactionaries who support the criminals who defied the verdict of the Thai people at elections frankly turn the stomach.In most cases they are just ignorant and / or thick so I suppose one should grant some latitude.

Again the mandate is accepted as legal, but "moral" issues have to be considered; which of course are subjective. To you, the coup was criminally wrong; to me removing an aspiring dictator who refused to call elections after his mandate had expired, and was actively loading the police and army with his family and cronies, was a distasteful but necessary step, in line with removing cancerous tissue. After the coup there was an election, after which was a cleansing of those caught in political and electoral fraud, after which the current govt was formed by a majority of elected MPs, who each received a majority of votes in their electorate. How is that against the wishes of the Thai people?

It doesn't matter if you like it or not, that is the way it is.

Foreign reactionaries? Which communist manifesto did you drag that from? Please point out the egregious errors.

Dream on Pollyanna.

[nong38]

bisit is a good man and about an honest a politician as you are likely to get. I think his statement means its a difficult fix this reconcilliation thing and the thought of losing if could be fixed shows he would give up a lot for that end game. I think he will win and I hope the new governemnt can make it a number one priority with a hug effort, it will need to be, to solve the situation. As we know it takes to 2 to tango and the other dancer may not want to leave their seat, without a stick. As far as the earlier election that was promised is concerned, I thought the UDD failed to take up the offer and it was cancelled.

Who was that bloke who said "Give peace a chance"

Agreed. Lots of people slag him off, but given the alternatives, he's about the best Thailand is going to get...and the best in the recent past. Or am I totally wrong about this?

If you look at his comments in terms of the overall context of the meeting, it makes perfect sense. He was talking at a conference on "Thailand's Economic Risks and the Government Cooperation". So saying he would step down to help the economy is a good thing to say when you are speaking there.

Abhisit has been around in thai politics for a longtime - he has tried several times to be elected to govt and consequently PM....and he failed.......so he seized the opportunity to get in by the back door.he has no true MANDATE and has made no attempt to get one; He now has failed to ratify that appointment with an election because he can be pretty sure he'd fail....He now has the "support" and influence of the army and is using increasingly draconian measures to smother any potential opposition.

This man talks the talk but doesn't walk the walk

He is not alone then, Obama has not pulled many trees either. Being a politician is not easy trying to please all the time aint possible and running a country like Thailand is no cake walk, I hope he gets a democratic chance and wish him luck he will need luck and goodwill. On the world stage I think he represents Thailand well, is a good negotiator and is prespected abroad as agood listerner and talker, if only the opposition can do the same, put someone up who is prepared to listen and talk and find a way forward together. Thailand has great potential, but until individuals realize that thats all it will be.

[chantorn]

"Will definitely be a general election next year"

Even a 5 years old knew that.

Election next year is by default. No one change that, not even him. So no one in this world have the authority to change it either, not even the k..g. So i don't see why Mark has to promise the world of something that is going to happen anyway?

http://inside.org.au...isit-vejjajiva/

According to the constitution, an election is due by the end of 2011 and Abhisit will probably hold on to power for as long as he possibly can.

Edited October 28, 2010 by chantorn

[jayjay0]

As ever the argument is lost here in a series of facile posts. You have failed completely to address the point and are merely giving other instances that you think might be connected to my argument.please try and comprehend the initial statement and if you have a contrary opinion post it. At present your are not presenting an opinion that is contrary to mine so how can I possible answer you other than to point out that you and "whybother" are not on the same topic as me.

No - I don't think the point has been missed at all.

- Your point is that the current government does not have "the mandate of the people" and the last ones did.

- I'm saying that no Thai government has ever had the mandate of the people.

- whybother is saying that their is no difference in relationships of the last 4 governments and the mandate of the people, which you do not subscribe to.

This is where the contrary opinions fall.

I think the difference is that the previous governments won the most seats, although not enough to form the Govt they still won the most seats out of any party and quite rightly went on to form coalitions and form the government, however the dems fell short of winning the most seats so there is some level of unfairness in the fact that they are now the government, added to the fact they are the government only because the government at that time were disbanded for vote buying, while the dems were also found guilty of vote buying but not disbanded.

I realize you are talking about the mandate however but we could argue that the PPP/TRT did have the mandate by virtue of the fact they held the most seats, the dems were only handed that mandate after the largest party in parliament were disbanded, it would be fair to say that more constituencies did not vote for their representative and therefore do not want them in power, they voted for the party that eventually won most seats and therefore handed them the mandate, we could say they won the mandate, while the dems had it handed to them.

You can say any thing you want. The Prime Minister's mandate is to serve the people no matter how many seats his party has. As long as he comes to power in the accepted legal way such as the current one has there is no problem.

Good thing you can't play with knives.

[rixalex]

"Will definitely be a general election next year"

Even a 5 years old knew that.

Election next year is by default. No one change that, not even him. So no one in this world have the authority to change it either, not even the k..g. So i don't see why Mark has to promise the world of something that is going to happen anyway?

http://inside.org.au...isit-vejjajiva/

According to the constitution, an election is due by the end of 2011 and Abhisit will probably hold on to power for as long as he possibly can.

What you are saying then, is that all the people who have posted over the last few months on Thaivisa, expressing doubt that there will be elections next year, must have been computer savy, politically interested 4 year olds?

[Pi Sek]

"Will definitely be a general election next year"

Even a 5 years old knew that.

Election next year is by default. No one change that, not even him. So no one in this world have the authority to change it either, not even the k..g. So i don't see why Mark has to promise the world of something that is going to happen anyway?

http://inside.org.au...isit-vejjajiva/

According to the constitution, an election is due by the end of 2011 and Abhisit will probably hold on to power for as long as he possibly can.

What you are saying then, is that all the people who have posted over the last few months on Thaivisa, expressing doubt that there will be elections next year, must have been computer savy, politically interested 4 year olds?

Without wanting to sound rude, and without wanting to agree with someone whose interests usually amount to winding others up (yin dee khrap Khun Chantorn!), the post said that there are 5 year olds who know that there would be an election next year - which is right.

Those who doubted this were - well - wrong/brainwashed/uneducated/etc. Unfortunately this argument works this time, although it normally doesn't. Sorry.

She mentioned nothing about computer savy, politically-interested 4 year olds but my gut instinct tells me that, if they are computer-savvy and politically-interested by the age of 4, they know at least as much as your average 5 year old.

[Deeral]

bisit is a good man and about an honest a politician as you are likely to get. I think his statement means its a difficult fix this reconcilliation thing and the thought of losing if could be fixed shows he would give up a lot for that end game. I think he will win and I hope the new governemnt can make it a number one priority with a hug effort, it will need to be, to solve the situation. As we know it takes to 2 to tango and the other dancer may not want to leave their seat, without a stick. As far as the earlier election that was promised is concerned, I thought the UDD failed to take up the offer and it was cancelled.

Who was that bloke who said "Give peace a chance"

Agreed. Lots of people slag him off, but given the alternatives, he's about the best Thailand is going to get...and the best in the recent past. Or am I totally wrong about this?

If you look at his comments in terms of the overall context of the meeting, it makes perfect sense. He was talking at a conference on "Thailand's Economic Risks and the Government Cooperation". So saying he would step down to help the economy is a good thing to say when you are speaking there.

Abhisit has been around in thai politics for a longtime - he has tried several times to be elected to govt and consequently PM....and he failed.......so he seized the opportunity to get in by the back door.he has no true MANDATE and has made no attempt to get one; He now has failed to ratify that appointment with an election because he can be pretty sure he'd fail....He now has the "support" and influence of the army and is using increasingly draconian measures to smother any potential opposition.

This man talks the talk but doesn't walk the walk

He is not alone then, Obama has not pulled many trees either. Being a politician is not easy trying to please all the time aint possible and running a country like Thailand is no cake walk, I hope he gets a democratic chance and wish him luck he will need luck and goodwill. On the world stage I think he represents Thailand well, is a good negotiator and is prespected abroad as agood listerner and talker, if only the opposition can do the same, put someone up who is prepared to listen and talk and find a way forward together. Thailand has great potential, but until individuals realize that thats all it will be.

" is a good negotiator and is prespected abroad as agood listerner and talker," - interesting....on what are you basing that observation? he certainly didn't seem to do a vey good job with the Redshirts.

Many people on this site talk of Abhisit as if he is a "new boy" a fresh wind of change - but the truth is he is the son of a politician and has been around for a while himself - he is part of the old establishment and tarred with the same brush.

please don't allude to his upbringing or education in the UK - there are plenty of examples of horrendous politicians around the world who were educated in the West but returned to be dictators, despots etc in their own country.

It would also help if some people looked up the meaning and USAGE of the word "mandate"

Edited October 28, 2010 by Deeral

[whybother]

" is a good negotiator and is prespected abroad as agood listerner and talker," - interesting....on on are you baisng that observation. he certainly didn't seem to do a vey good job with the Redshirts

He did get agreement from the red shirts a couple of times ... only for them to change their minds, and then stop negotiating.

[Pi Sek]

" is a good negotiator and is prespected abroad as agood listerner and talker," - interesting....on on are you baisng that observation.

he certainly didn't seem to do a vey good job with the Redshirts

Actually, if you remember, he did a great job. Such a great job that *someone* had to call Jatuporn away from the negotiations as it looked like he was going to agree to something that didn't suit that *someone*'s needs and benefit the interest of the common Thai people!

[rubl]

begin removed ...

It would also help if some people looked up the meaning and USAGE of the word "mandate"

Mandate: In politics, a mandate is the authority granted by a constituency to act as its representative.

This seems to apply to MP's only. At least as far as wikipedia is concerned. If we expand the definition to cover governments then I'm afraid not too many governments in this world have a mandate. In the Netherlands we have an interesting coalition, but with proportional representation it's clear not all people voted for them. Same in the UK even with constituencies.

[thaihome]

" is a good negotiator and is prespected abroad as agood listerner and talker," - interesting....on on are you baisng that observation. he certainly didn't seem to do a vey good job with the Redshirts

He did get agreement from the red shirts a couple of times ... only for them to change their minds, and then stop negotiating.

From Red Power, September, 2010

The title reads: Does Veera betray in deed?

[This refers to the widespread impression that Veera betrayed Thaksin's orders to fight for immediate elections during the Red Shirt rallies and agreed to a government plan to call elections in November for an end to the rallies.]

[SergeiY]

"Will definitely be a general election next year"

Even a 5 years old knew that.

Election next year is by default. No one change that, not even him. So no one in this world have the authority to change it either, not even the k..g. So i don't see why Mark has to promise the world of something that is going to happen anyway?

http://inside.org.au...isit-vejjajiva/

According to the constitution, an election is due by the end of 2011 and Abhisit will probably hold on to power for as long as he possibly can.

Yep, it is clear. Clear same as that Abhisit will not win in that election.

But Abhisit as politician as the talent to put everything in good light or sell it as his achievement.

[whybother]

Yep, it is clear. Clear same as that Abhisit will not win in that election.

But Abhisit as politician as the talent to put everything in good light or sell it as his achievement.

On what do you base your opinion that "Abhisit will not win in that election".

If you're saying that he won't get a majority, I would agree with that. The current set up of the government and published opinion polls seem to show that.

If you're saying that he won't be PM after the next election (given he isn't banned), the current coalition and published opinion polls seem to indicate that he will be.

[SergeiY]

Yep, it is clear. Clear same as that Abhisit will not win in that election.

But Abhisit as politician as the talent to put everything in good light or sell it as his achievement.

On what do you base your opinion that "Abhisit will not win in that election".

If you're saying that he won't get a majority, I would agree with that. The current set up of the government and published opinion polls seem to show that.

If you're saying that he won't be PM after the next election (given he isn't banned), the current coalition and published opinion polls seem to indicate that he will be.

published opinion polls?

"However, many* people are afraid to express their political views publicly, suggesting that the state is commonly perceived as more fearsome than criminals."

http://www.prosperity.com/country.aspx?id=TH

Edited October 28, 2010 by SergeiY

[rixalex]

Yep, it is clear. Clear same as that Abhisit will not win in that election.

Who will, oh great seer of all?

[rubl]

Yep, it is clear. Clear same as that Abhisit will not win in that election.

But Abhisit as politician as the talent to put everything in good light or sell it as his achievement.

On what do you base your opinion that "Abhisit will not win in that election".

If you're saying that he won't get a majority, I would agree with that. The current set up of the government and published opinion polls seem to show that.

If you're saying that he won't be PM after the next election (given he isn't banned), the current coalition and published opinion polls seem to indicate that he will be.

The problem with polls is that you can manipulate questions AND answers in such a way that the results are what you wanted them to be. Having said that it seems the political landscape in Thailand will not move much. Slightly less PTP, a bit more BJP, Dem's, nothing shocking.

Just for the fun of it:

"We needed to have the press be our friend ... We wanted them to ask the questions we want to answer so that they report the news the way we want it to be reported." --Sharron Angle, during an interview with Fox News Channel's Carl Cameron, Aug. 2, 2010

[thaihome]

published opinion polls?

"However, many* people are afraid to express their political views publicly, suggesting that the state is commonly perceived as more fearsome than criminals."

http://www.prosperity.com/country.aspx?id=TH

Oops, you forgot to add this one, right after your quote.

"Despite restricted civil liberties – including freedom of expression, belief, association, and personal autonomy – an astonishing 87%* of the population are satisfied with their freedom of choice in their daily lives"

TH

[SergeiY]

published opinion polls?

"However, many* people are afraid to express their political views publicly, suggesting that the state is commonly perceived as more fearsome than criminals."

http://www.prosperity.com/country.aspx?id=TH

Oops, you forgot to add this one, right after your quote.

"Despite restricted civil liberties – including freedom of expression, belief, association, and personal autonomy – an astonishing 87%* of the population are satisfied with their freedom of choice in their daily lives"

TH

And?

Some more % from some opinion survey ...

You forget that that i just wrote a reply to another comment.

[SergeiY]

Yep, it is clear. Clear same as that Abhisit will not win in that election.

Who will, oh great seer of all?

I am not a seer, i read the OP:

"BANGKOK: -- Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva stressed Wednesday that he preferred to lose a general election rather than winning it and causing violence."