Red Shirts Gather At Democracy Monument.

[hyperdimension]

Amsterdam & Peroff was a client of K Social Media Consulting LLC:

Here's some information about James Kimer, founder of K Social Media Consulting LLC:

James holds a Bachelor of Arts in psychology from Lewis & Clark College (Portland, OR) and a Joint Master of Arts in journalism and Latin American studies from New York University. A native of Minneapolis, MN, he is a published writer, active blogger, and fluent Spanish speaker.

KSM was founded in New York City and relocated to Washington DC in early 2010.

So they moved to Washington DC at around the time of the April & May 2010 protests. I wonder if it was to be close to Amsterdam & Peroff's Washington DC office.

[Emptyset]

Thank you for recognizing that the poll you cited adds up to only 58.7% of the electorate, whereas the previous poll I cited adds up to 99.7% of the electorate.

Here's another more recent poll (Dec 2010) by ABAC http://asiancorrespondent.com/39010/if-an-election-was-held-today-how-would-thais-vote/: A. Democrats, 46.7% B. Puea Thai, 44% - i.e. too close to call and within the margin of error. But that really gives more of an indication of the party list vote, which, although more important (because of the amendments) in the coming election, won't really be decisive. They were very close on the PL vote last time and it looks likely it'll be the same again, but PT got its plurality through the constituency vote. As Hammered points out, Dems and PT don't really compete in many constituency seats, so PJT & other smaller parties constituency performance will be more crucial than Dems vs PT in the overall vote. So these polls basically tell us very little other than the two main parties are pretty close, unless it gives one party a huge lead - and remember one poll gave the Democrats a 20% lead before the 2007 election.

BKK Pundit makes similar points underneath this poll from August 2010, http://asiancorrespondent.com/39010/if-an-election-was-held-today-how-would-thais-vote/, which actually gave PT a 5% lead over the Dems:

1. Things are turning more into a two party system. This is good for both parties. Democrats have less to worry from NPP who are looking more like an annoyance (although they will likely hinder the Democrats in the constituency vote). It will be harder for third parties to lure away defectors from Puea Thai given the votes for the third parties is shrinking. Not that some will not try and this is why you have figures of up to 50 million Baht per MP to switch to Bhum Jai Thai. The closer you get to an election, the less rationale for someone to switch.

2. What happens if this poll is also Democrat-leaning by 4-5 points as well? Obviously, you have the constituency vote to consider – actually at the 2007 general election, PPP (predecessor to Puea Thai) and the Democrats were neck-and-neck on the party vote, but PPP won by more than 6% on the constituency vote.

[Emptyset]

Mingkwan is an ambitious person in his own right. He would love to lead PTP which would give him a shot at being PM especially in a deal with other parties. It isnt that he is owned by Newin or Thaksin and in the latter lies the problem for the real boss of the party. He has already been Samaked after coming out top in an election and knows an ambitious politician like Mingkwan would happily take his support in an election campaign and then do deals excluding the big boss for power if he had to. The flip side is a monied up Mingkwan has purchased the loyalty of a lot of PTP MPs and cant just be brushed off in favour of a loyal although less appealing to MPs Chalerm or a younger family member who would also split things. That is why Abhisit sits talking about sudden elections all the time as it continually prods the wound. Whoever the leader is will lose MPs but to drive out Mingkwan would be to reduce to PTP to a very small size potentially, while to keep him could see a super samaking.

It isnt about the Dems being wel positioned. They will likely get a very similar number of seats to what they got last time. Dems and PTP territory of competition isnt really overlapping. The crux is BJT which is based in and fighting for seats almost entirely in PTP heartland (plus a few Dem eastern places). Buri Ram and parts of Surin look good BJT turf and the recent Korat defections show it looks good for them too

Nice assessment. Thanks.

[metisdead]

One post with a reference to HM the King has been removed.

I'll post a reminder, again:

Speculation, comments and discussion of either a political or personal nature are not allowed when discussing HM The King or the Royal family.

[TAWP]

It's become the default position to criticise Amsterdam rather than deal with the arguments he puts forward

No, it is about admitting that he will never read nor contemplate the points we put across and that as a payed propaganda tool he has no interest in being correct, sincere nor balanced.

It would, by all accounts, only be a point to counter his points by those that have the venues to have their replies published in largely the same amount or places that RA pushes his stories. Hardly something many of us here have, so it is a waste of time.

So we jump directly to the truth of what he is.

Confirmation of what I said about the default position.Neither the knowledge, analytical ability or energy to do the hard thinking so takes the intellectually slovenly approach of personal abuse.

Needless to say the points made in the post under reference by Andrew Marshall (Reuters) are simply ignored.

Are you saying that you lack the analytical ability to understand my post and therefor decide to push some personal abuse instead? I would agree.

Because what you don't acknowledge or realize - please advice which one it is - is that often the points have been countered (often many times) either here or at other places. And even after a lengthy post of rebuttal, what is the sum? Apart from some flames from the red shirt apologist or hardcore supporters (especially over Twitter, using anon user-handles) nothing of value is gained. RA doesn't respond to emails, posts or Twitter-messages because he isn't personally vested and only following his payed agenda. And those too deep in their beliefs will rationalize away every counterpoint and refuse to really read them.

So now, tell us, what is it you want us to do? Write the same posts over and over again? Like whenever a poster here says 'this government isn't elected' or 'this government was installed after the coup', assertions which are both wrong but posted on multiple occasions. Now when even easy facts like this doesn't really get across, how do you expect the rebuttal of a multi-page propaganda-created report is going to be handled?

[phiphidon]

INTERNET LOBBYISTS. Convince people of your supposed authenticity by choosing a pseudonym based on the entity you are representing combined with a adjective indicating integrity.

Is that irony there, Insight?

[Insight]

INTERNET LOBBYISTS. Convince people of your supposed authenticity by choosing a pseudonym based on the entity you are representing combined with a adjective indicating integrity.

Is that irony there, Insight?

Feeling the heat a bit, Phiphidon? Don't worry - you're missing the adjective.

[phiphidon]

"how do you expect the rebuttal of a multi-page propaganda-created report is going to be handled? (TAWPs words not mine)"

Well personally I would like the government to provide the rebuttal.

[Pi Sek]

But I do think that RA has representatives on here. He would be foolish not to - and it's his speciality anyway, lobbying using the Internet. I have no idea who they are, but I have noticed a few newbie posters showing up with "I don't know much about Thai politics, but from what I have seen..." quickly followed by "Thaksin was a superhero and Abhisit is a murderer". Happens every now and again, but I think there are also one or two regular posters on his payroll.

Or maybe I'm just paranoid.

If Thaihome is to be believed I'm probably one of them. Perhaps that's why I'm studiously ignoring mentions of Amsterdam, so people don't connect my name with his. It's pure dissembling, of course. (Or maybe I just find Amsterdam boring and think reds would be better off without him).

No worries Emptyset, I've had similar (but opposite) accusations levelled at me too. But don't worry - it's the thought that counts, and it only happens to the best of us.

[Pi Sek]

"how do you expect the rebuttal of a multi-page propaganda-created report is going to be handled? (TAWPs words not mine)"

Well personally I would like the government to provide the rebuttal.

That's a reasonable request... although, as both you and the government probably know, any rebuttal would just prompt another Amsterdam offering, which would then have to be answered as the first rebuttal set a precedent.

I suspect that the international community (but unfortunately not the international media) see the lack of response as a sign of strength than weakness. Not answering it because it's not worth answering, if you will - they've also adopted this stance when Thai journalists ask them about ICC action, they just laugh it off. It's more economical just to ignore him.

However, the legitimacy of RA is that the government/army/CRES still have not cleared up the bloodshed. Sure, there are mitigating factors, but I'm convinced they could have done better. I don't think it's entirely down to the government though.

[phiphidon]

INTERNET LOBBYISTS. Convince people of your supposed authenticity by choosing a pseudonym based on the entity you are representing combined with a adjective indicating integrity.

Is that irony there, Insight?

Feeling the heat a bit, Phiphidon? Don't worry - you're missing the adjective.

Cool as melting icecube (there you go, there's your adjective) , just thought I'd throw a bit of levity your way,

PhiPhiDon (never knowingly missing an adjective before)

[jayboy]

It's become the default position to criticise Amsterdam rather than deal with the arguments he puts forward

No, it is about admitting that he will never read nor contemplate the points we put across and that as a payed propaganda tool he has no interest in being correct, sincere nor balanced.

It would, by all accounts, only be a point to counter his points by those that have the venues to have their replies published in largely the same amount or places that RA pushes his stories. Hardly something many of us here have, so it is a waste of time.

So we jump directly to the truth of what he is.

Confirmation of what I said about the default position.Neither the knowledge, analytical ability or energy to do the hard thinking so takes the intellectually slovenly approach of personal abuse.

Needless to say the points made in the post under reference by Andrew Marshall (Reuters) are simply ignored.

Are you saying that you lack the analytical ability to understand my post and therefor decide to push some personal abuse instead? I would agree.

Because what you don't acknowledge or realize - please advice which one it is - is that often the points have been countered (often many times) either here or at other places. And even after a lengthy post of rebuttal, what is the sum? Apart from some flames from the red shirt apologist or hardcore supporters (especially over Twitter, using anon user-handles) nothing of value is gained. RA doesn't respond to emails, posts or Twitter-messages because he isn't personally vested and only following his payed agenda. And those too deep in their beliefs will rationalize away every counterpoint and refuse to really read them.

So now, tell us, what is it you want us to do? Write the same posts over and over again? Like whenever a poster here says 'this government isn't elected' or 'this government was installed after the coup', assertions which are both wrong but posted on multiple occasions. Now when even easy facts like this doesn't really get across, how do you expect the rebuttal of a multi-page propaganda-created report is going to be handled?

Confirms what I already said about the default position, then becomes incoherent.

Andrew Marshall is incidentally very far from being an apologist for any side.

[TAWP]

Confirmation of what I said about the default position.Neither the knowledge, analytical ability or energy to do the hard thinking so takes the intellectually slovenly approach of personal abuse.

Needless to say the points made in the post under reference by Andrew Marshall (Reuters) are simply ignored.

Are you saying that you lack the analytical ability to understand my post and therefor decide to push some personal abuse instead? I would agree.

Because what you don't acknowledge or realize - please advice which one it is - is that often the points have been countered (often many times) either here or at other places. And even after a lengthy post of rebuttal, what is the sum? Apart from some flames from the red shirt apologist or hardcore supporters (especially over Twitter, using anon user-handles) nothing of value is gained. RA doesn't respond to emails, posts or Twitter-messages because he isn't personally vested and only following his payed agenda. And those too deep in their beliefs will rationalize away every counterpoint and refuse to really read them.

So now, tell us, what is it you want us to do? Write the same posts over and over again? Like whenever a poster here says 'this government isn't elected' or 'this government was installed after the coup', assertions which are both wrong but posted on multiple occasions. Now when even easy facts like this doesn't really get across, how do you expect the rebuttal of a multi-page propaganda-created report is going to be handled?

Confirms what I already said about the default position, then becomes incoherent.

Andrew Marshall is incidentally very far from being an apologist for any side.

If you lack ability to understand a post then I doubt you can make the assumption it confirms any of your nonsense conjectures. But then again, that is your MO.

Do tell, how many foreign lawyers are working as solicitors in Bangkok now? Even when you are completely wrong you manage to bring a thread to some 10(?) pages of defense of your incorrect statement. It is your MO.

So excuse me if I don't really assign your opinion or ideas much weight.

And the objection (and personal attack) was about Robert Amsterdam, not Andrew Marshall. If you are able to keep people apart.

[jayboy]

If you lack ability to understand a post then I doubt you can make the assumption it confirms any of your nonsense conjectures. But then again, that is your MO.

Do tell, how many foreign lawyers are working as solicitors in Bangkok now? Even when you are completely wrong you manage to bring a thread to some 10(?) pages of defense of your incorrect statement. It is your MO.

So excuse me if I don't really assign your opinion or ideas much weight.

And the objection (and personal attack) was about Robert Amsterdam, not Andrew Marshall. If you are able to keep people apart.

I have been criticised for many things but not yet my ability to comprehend.

On the question of foreign lawyerts practising in Bangkok, I actually won the argument and the irrelevant introduction of this issue suggests you are aware you are losing this one.There are hordes of foreign lawyers as anybody who has had dealings with Freshfields, Allen and Overy, White and Case knows.They may be licensed appropriately as advisors but that's beside the point.

I'm well aware that Amsterdam and Marshall are separate.Who suggested otherwise? Since there is a well documented tendency to slander and abuse Amsterdam (to the point of nasty anti-semitism in some cases) I accept on this forum much of a debate on the issues he raises is unlikely.Marshall sums up the evidence in a sober and non-emotional way.Any fair person knows the Thai Government has many unanswered questions to address on the killings last year.Some like you prefer to treat those who raise these questions with abuse, anything to avoid difficult questions and hard thinking.Others, in a category I include myself, are broadly supportive of the Abhisit Government but are keen to see a much greater urgency and transparency in investigating both civilian and military deaths.Andrew Marshall covers much of this important ground, including the lack of co-operation from the armed forces.

[SomTumTiger]

Both of you <deleted> :jap:

This back and forth is like two old women fighting over the last bran muffin at the store.

[Robby nz]

Another indication of how a vote in a national election would go would have to be the recent vote on the constitutional changes.

How many PTP members voted with the Govt, 85 wasnt it?

Where would these MP.s who voted against their party stand after an election?

Would they stay with PTP or change parties?

[TAWP]

On the question of foreign lawyerts practising in Bangkok, I actually won the argument and the irrelevant introduction of this issue suggests you are aware you are losing this one.There are hordes of foreign lawyers as anybody who has had dealings with Freshfields, Allen and Overy, White and Case knows.They may be licensed appropriately as advisors but that's beside the point.

Once again you lie. The whole argument was based on that there was not a large slew of licensed lawyers in the function of lawyers in BKK, that most foreign 'lawyers' here are merely advisers.

But of course in your warped mind you backtracked until you adopted this position to be your point. O-well. But it shows how you rationalize to yourself to 'always be right'. I wasn't really involved in the argument, but it was funny to follow. Classical.

And from it we learn how you will argue here.

[philw]

If you lack ability to understand a post then I doubt you can make the assumption it confirms any of your nonsense conjectures. But then again, that is your MO.

Do tell, how many foreign lawyers are working as solicitors in Bangkok now? Even when you are completely wrong you manage to bring a thread to some 10(?) pages of defense of your incorrect statement. It is your MO.

So excuse me if I don't really assign your opinion or ideas much weight.

And the objection (and personal attack) was about Robert Amsterdam, not Andrew Marshall. If you are able to keep people apart.

I have been criticised for many things but not yet my ability to comprehend.

On the question of foreign lawyerts practising in Bangkok, I actually won the argument and the irrelevant introduction of this issue suggests you are aware you are losing this one.There are hordes of foreign lawyers as anybody who has had dealings with Freshfields, Allen and Overy, White and Case knows.They may be licensed appropriately as advisors but that's beside the point.

I'm well aware that Amsterdam and Marshall are separate.Who suggested otherwise? Since there is a well documented tendency to slander and abuse Amsterdam (to the point of nasty anti-semitism in some cases) I accept on this forum much of a debate on the issues he raises is unlikely.Marshall sums up the evidence in a sober and non-emotional way.Any fair person knows the Thai Government has many unanswered questions to address on the killings last year.Some like you prefer to treat those who raise these questions with abuse, anything to avoid difficult questions and hard thinking.Others, in a category I include myself, are broadly supportive of the Abhisit Government but are keen to see a much greater urgency and transparency in investigating both civilian and military deaths.Andrew Marshall covers much of this important ground, including the lack of co-operation from the armed forces.

JB, your last paragraph defines it.

Well said.

[patjem]

Still the one question:

Strangely till now no info at all on the 3,000 red-shirts from Chiang Mai who were supposed to leave from there 7PM on the 12th. Krissana Prombuengram, core leader of Rak Chiang Mai 51 group told us so. What happened?

As 'your man in Chiang Mai', I understand that 6 coachloads went down there, with petrol money coming from some monk or other. Personally, I doubt it was 3,000, but whatever the number I think we can conclude that they went down there, had a demo and went home without any violence (unless I've missed some newspaper report to the contrary).

I don't think it is strange that there's no info - just a case of nothing newsworthy happening. What were you expecting?

6 coach loads, 50 to a coach, there were possibly around 300 of them..... About the average red skirt BS factor (million man march, in reality ~100k at it's peak).

Not worth a further mention.... We've heard all the flawed and distorted rhetoric before.

[rubl]

Wow, I'm glad that Abhisit admits:

The elections themselves would be a partial if not a complete answer to those grievances," Abhisit said in the interview, recorded on Jan. 28 and broadcast today. "Once the elections are done, the Red Shirts will have to admit that we've gone through a round of a democratic process, and therefore whoever wins the election should have the right to govern.

Shame he didn't think that way in, well, around 2009.

What PM Abhisit says here is that new elections will bring new chances, new winners. He doesn't admit much, maybe just that the discussion about his cabinets legality will never reach common grounds independent of what it is. As most(/a lot/a handfull/the army, apply according to opinion ) seem to accept this cabinet there was no need for early elections. Don't worry the elections will come, February 2012 at the latest. Democracy at work

Edited February 16, 2011 by rubl

[phiphidon]

Wow, I'm glad that Abhisit admits:

The elections themselves would be a partial if not a complete answer to those grievances," Abhisit said in the interview, recorded on Jan. 28 and broadcast today. "Once the elections are done, the Red Shirts will have to admit that we've gone through a round of a democratic process, and therefore whoever wins the election should have the right to govern.

Shame he didn't think that way in, well, around 2009.

What PM Abhisit says here is that new elections will bring new chances, new winners. He doesn't admit much, maybe just that the discussion about his cabinets legality will never reach common grounds independent of what it is. As most(/a lot/a handfull/the army, apply according to opinion ) seem to accept this cabinet there was no need for early elections. Don't worry the elections will come, February 2012 at the latest. Democracy at work

But his main man Suthep has said there's going to be election before June, definitely, promise, cross my heart, you can trust me, have I ever told you lies etc.

[rubl]

Wow, I'm glad that Abhisit admits:

The elections themselves would be a partial if not a complete answer to those grievances," Abhisit said in the interview, recorded on Jan. 28 and broadcast today. "Once the elections are done, the Red Shirts will have to admit that we've gone through a round of a democratic process, and therefore whoever wins the election should have the right to govern.

Shame he didn't think that way in, well, around 2009.

What PM Abhisit says here is that new elections will bring new chances, new winners. He doesn't admit much, maybe just that the discussion about his cabinets legality will never reach common grounds independent of what it is. As most(/a lot/a handfull/the army, apply according to opinion ) seem to accept this cabinet there was no need for early elections. Don't worry the elections will come, February 2012 at the latest. Democracy at work

But his main man Suthep has said there's going to be election before June, definitely, promise, cross my heart, you can trust me, have I ever told you lies etc.

But? Which part of "February 2012 at the latest" didn't you understand?

[jayboy]

Once again you lie. The whole argument was based on that there was not a large slew of licensed lawyers in the function of lawyers in BKK, that most foreign 'lawyers' here are merely advisers.

But of course in your warped mind you backtracked until you adopted this position to be your point. O-well. But it shows how you rationalize to yourself to 'always be right'. I wasn't really involved in the argument, but it was funny to follow. Classical.

And from it we learn how you will argue here.

Gosh.Epithets like "you lie" and "warped mind" on the rather dull subject of foreign lawyers.What happens when you're really annoyed?

[phiphidon]

But his main man Suthep has said there's going to be election before June, definitely, promise, cross my heart, you can trust me, have I ever told you lies etc.

But? Which part of "February 2012 at the latest" didn't you understand?

Now, now, Rubl, calm down. I understand you perfectly. What I don't understand is Khun Abhisit giving out a little tease now and then, in fact since last april -

Early elections? No not now, you make too many demands,

Early elections? No I have to have 3 factors in place first,

Early elections? No not quite yet, need to stabilise the economy,

Ok thats done,

Early elections? No, got to manipulate the constitutional changes so that the opposition gets less constituency seats and we get more chance of winning more seats on the party list,

Early elections? No, we need you to have a leader,

OK we've got one,

Ah but you haven't said when the censure debate is, I can't dissolve the house if there's a censure debate

Early elections? No got to approve the budget so that we can award those who helped us get through the constitutional changes, sorry pay for all the flood damage and stuff, oh yeah and its payback time for the army for their help,

Early elections?............ maybe, just one hurdle to jump

And whats that?

Peace in our time

Don't you know there's a war skirmish on!................................

Not necessarily in that order but you get the picture, I know you won't but I live in hope.

Edited February 17, 2011 by phiphidon

[hyperdimension]

He wouldn't have to keep responding with reasons (or excuses if that's what you want to call them) if people didn't keep prodding him with the question.

The red shirts aren't even demanding early elections any more at all. Do Pheu Thai really want immediate House dissolution? Or would they rather wait a month or two or three?

Edited February 18, 2011 by hyperdimension

[rubl]

Now, now, Rubl, calm down. I understand you perfectly. What I don't understand is Khun Abhisit giving out a little tease now and then, in fact since last april -

Early elections? No not now, you make too many demands,

Early elections? No I have to have 3 factors in place first,

Early elections? No not quite yet, need to stabilise the economy,

Ok thats done,

Early elections? No, got to manipulate the constitutional changes so that the opposition gets less constituency seats and we get more chance of winning more seats on the party list,

Early elections? No, we need you to have a leader,

OK we've got one,

Ah but you haven't said when the censure debate is, I can't dissolve the house if there's a censure debate

Early elections? No got to approve the budget so that we can award those who helped us get through the constitutional changes, sorry pay for all the flood damage and stuff, oh yeah and its payback time for the army for their help,

Early elections?............ maybe, just one hurdle to jump

And whats that?

Peace in our time

Don't you know there's a war skirmish on!................................

Not necessarily in that order but you get the picture, I know you won't but I live in hope.

Early elections seem something like the 'upcoming coup', everyone feels a need to say something. Many feel a need to ask politicians to give their opinion. Politicians of course never really need much prodding to say whatever.

Unsure why you think I need to calm down, suggests I'm not calm? Is it my writing style? As for not getting the picture, preposterous, I got it:

(edit: prettige vrijdag = have a nice Friday, groetjes = greetings)

Edited February 18, 2011 by rubl

[phiphidon]

Now, now, Rubl, calm down. I understand you perfectly. What I don't understand is Khun Abhisit giving out a little tease now and then, in fact since last april -

Early elections? No not now, you make too many demands,

Early elections? No I have to have 3 factors in place first,

Early elections? No not quite yet, need to stabilise the economy,

Ok thats done,

Early elections? No, got to manipulate the constitutional changes so that the opposition gets less constituency seats and we get more chance of winning more seats on the party list,

Early elections? No, we need you to have a leader,

OK we've got one,

Ah but you haven't said when the censure debate is, I can't dissolve the house if there's a censure debate

Early elections? No got to approve the budget so that we can award those who helped us get through the constitutional changes, sorry pay for all the flood damage and stuff, oh yeah and its payback time for the army for their help,

Early elections?............ maybe, just one hurdle to jump

And whats that?

Peace in our time

Don't you know there's a war skirmish on!................................

Not necessarily in that order but you get the picture, I know you won't but I live in hope.

Early elections seem something like the 'upcoming coup', everyone feels a need to say something. Many feel a need to ask politicians to give their opinion. Politicians of course never really need much prodding to say whatever.

Unsure why you think I need to calm down, suggests I'm not calm? Is it my writing style? As for not getting the picture, preposterous, I got it:

(edit: prettige vrijdag = have a nice Friday, groetjes = greetings)

In my part of the world the "What part of.............do you not understand" is a fairly aggressive question implying as it does the righteousness of the person posing the question and a lack of intelligence of the person the phrase was directed at, i.e "I'm right, how can you be so unintelligent as to not see that I am". So forgive me if I take exception. Equally annoying but not as aggressive phrases (though not used by you) on this Forum are "Whatever" and the intellectually vacuous "Sigh" or :Yawn".

My personal dislikes over with, I was pointing out that maybe, just maybe there was some truth in the belief that when Abhisit offered early elections way back last year he really had no intention of following through with it. Unfortunately, it seems that the Red Shirts dealt them selves the wrong cards and didn't call his bluff at the time. Lets face it, Abhisit has said on several occasions that he would not see his term out and would offer early elections, it's not as if he is being bullied into it as you and other posters on here are inferring, and every time there seems to be another obstacle. I'd be more impressed with him if he stood up and said I'm not calling the elections until the very last minute because I'm only going to get one chance at winning and I need to stack the odds in my favour before doing so, which is nearer the truth in my opinion.

[rubl]

My personal dislikes over with, I was pointing out that maybe, just maybe there was some truth in the belief that when Abhisit offered early elections way back last year he really had no intention of following through with it. Unfortunately, it seems that the Red Shirts dealt them selves the wrong cards and didn't call his bluff at the time. Lets face it, Abhisit has said on several occasions that he would not see his term out and would offer early elections, it's not as if he is being bullied into it as you and other posters on here are inferring, and every time there seems to be another obstacle. I'd be more impressed with him if he stood up and said I'm not calling the elections until the very last minute because I'm only going to get one chance at winning and I need to stack the odds in my favour before doing so, which is nearer the truth in my opinion.

Getting back to the part of opinions for which this forum is so useful, that's, that's why we're here

Maybe PM Abhsit's proposal for an early election offered to the red-shirts last year May was a bluff, maybe an honest offer to try to break the stand-off. We will probably never know for sure, but see many opinions on that. PM Abhisit has indicated on many occasions that he might / could / would most likely call for early elections. I'm not sure he ever said clearly 'we will have early elections' unless accompanied with some restrictions. Politicians you know

As for stacking the 'odds in my favour' that's normal in the political landscape in many countries. Why call for new general elections when legally it's not necessary and politically it may not be imperative yet. Look at the UK for examples; or Belgium with it world record of 'cabinet formation' with 249 days and counting, just taken over from Iraq.

Edited February 18, 2011 by rubl

[phiphidon]

Getting back to the part of opinions for which this forum is so useful, that's, that's why we're here

Maybe PM Abhsit's proposal for an early election offered to the red-shirts last year May was a bluff, maybe an honest offer to try to break the stand-off. We will probably never know for sure, but see many opinions on that. PM Abhisit has indicated on many occasions that he might / could / would most likely call for early elections. I'm not sure he ever said clearly 'we will have early elections' unless accompanied with some restrictions. Politicians you know

As for stacking the 'odds in my favour' that's normal in the political landscape in many countries. Why call for new general elections when legally it's not necessary and politically it may not be imperative yet. Look at the UK for examples; or Belgium with it world record of 'cabinet formation' with 249 days and counting, just taken over from Iraq.

I don't disagree with your last point, its how they do it that is suspect. The manipulation of the constituency and party list numbers a case in point - it just leads you into a situation for the losing side to cry foul. Likewise the distribution of the budget. It's all very well for the Democrats to score points by saying that obviously you wouldn't give money for flood damage (for arguments sake) to the Cultural Ministry (Democrat) but to the Interior Ministry (BJP) but the amounts allocated to the ministries run by the BJP look suspiciously like buying favours for when the next coalition becomes necessary. And where is the money going to come from? Korn confidently predicted 100M Baht to be raised by extra taxation but this was to be mainly provided by the new Land Tax. Which we all know has been delayed because they know dam_n well that it hasn't got a snowballs chance of being passed when the average MP owns approx 110 rai of land and the Senators average 130 odd rai each. And yes I do include the PTP in this scandal.

[rubl]

I don't disagree with your last point, its how they do it that is suspect. The manipulation of the constituency and party list numbers a case in point - it just leads you into a situation for the losing side to cry foul. Likewise the distribution of the budget. It's all very well for the Democrats to score points by saying that obviously you wouldn't give money for flood damage (for arguments sake) to the Cultural Ministry (Democrat) but to the Interior Ministry (BJP) but the amounts allocated to the ministries run by the BJP look suspiciously like buying favours for when the next coalition becomes necessary. And where is the money going to come from? Korn confidently predicted 100M Baht to be raised by extra taxation but this was to be mainly provided by the new Land Tax. Which we all know has been delayed because they know dam_n well that it hasn't got a snowballs chance of being passed when the average MP owns approx 110 rai of land and the Senators average 130 odd rai each. And yes I do include the PTP in this scandal.

BTW regarding early elections k. Prompong the PTP spokesman just said:

"He added that the opposition camp was ready for a general election, whenever it is called.

“But for the time being, the prime minister should pay attention to the people’s problems first, not just thinking about a dissolution of the House of Representatives,†he said."

(PS I wanted to ask 'what scandal', but I fear we drift off topic as it is already)