Abhisit Ready For Political Debate With Yingluck

[samurai]

If she debates with Abhisit, she gives him media exposure. That's why she's doing campaigning instead, because the Thai media are excited enough by her that they'll report every little thing she does, even if she sneezes or poops. And every second that they spend running behind her, they don't run behind Abhisit.

The media is a large enough entity to cover both.

She won't debate Abhisit because she risks too much for being shown for what she is.

It's the reason her brother alway refused to debate Abhisit.

.

Dream on.

During the Thaksin days Abhist was an absolute nobody no-one ever took notice of or was interested in.

Irinas argument was then even more valid as it now still is.

http://tiny.cc/9skc4

[jdinasia]

If she debates with Abhisit, she gives him media exposure. That's why she's doing campaigning instead, because the Thai media are excited enough by her that they'll report every little thing she does, even if she sneezes or poops. And every second that they spend running behind her, they don't run behind Abhisit.

Again I would suggest to you that you turn on the news (in Thailand) or open a paper (again in Thailand) .... The other paper yesterday ran 1 article on each ... The news showed both of them. The only reason she wouldn't debate Abhisit is if her handlers thought that she would make a poor showing.

[jayboy]

If she debates with Abhisit, she gives him media exposure. That's why she's doing campaigning instead, because the Thai media are excited enough by her that they'll report every little thing she does, even if she sneezes or poops. And every second that they spend running behind her, they don't run behind Abhisit.

Again I would suggest to you that you turn on the news (in Thailand) or open a paper (again in Thailand) .... The other paper yesterday ran 1 article on each ... The news showed both of them. The only reason she wouldn't debate Abhisit is if her handlers thought that she would make a poor showing.

I don't know what her handlers think anymore than jdinasia does.

The whole question of politicians debating is quite complex.As between Abhisit and Yingluck we don't have any idea who is the more intelligent.My hunch is that there's not much in it.We know that Abhisit is better educated , more experienced and much more adept at dealing with matters of local and international interest.He has the incumbent's advantage as well.Game to Abhisit one might think.On the other hand Yingluck is a more attractive person (in image and personality), a non politician in a country that's fed up with them, distinct from the old elite and a fresh face generally.

Think Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter.Carter had the greater intellect and was the incumbent.Reagan demolished him in the debate through making a few simple points, humour and self deprecation.I'm not saying Yingluck would do the same simply suggesting it's all a bit more complex than the forum's Thaksin haters would like to think.

[OZEMADE]

If she debates with Abhisit, she gives him media exposure. That's why she's doing campaigning instead, because the Thai media are excited enough by her that they'll report every little thing she does, even if she sneezes or poops. And every second that they spend running behind her, they don't run behind Abhisit.

Again I would suggest to you that you turn on the news (in Thailand) or open a paper (again in Thailand) .... The other paper yesterday ran 1 article on each ... The news showed both of them. The only reason she wouldn't debate Abhisit is if her handlers thought that she would make a poor showing.

I would have to agree, if her party wants her to debate any issues they will debate them. However nothing has really come up that either party wishes to debate, because the media have broadcast and printed all that both parties have had to say. At present a debate is not needed as she is clearly very popular and that is what worries Abhisit and his party.

[Buchholz]

If she debates with Abhisit, she gives him media exposure. That's why she's doing campaigning instead, because the Thai media are excited enough by her that they'll report every little thing she does, even if she sneezes or poops. And every second that they spend running behind her, they don't run behind Abhisit.

The media is a large enough entity to cover both.

She won't debate Abhisit because she risks too much for being shown for what she is.

It's the reason her brother alway refused to debate Abhisit.

During the Thaksin days Abhist was an absolute nobody no-one ever took notice of or was interested in.

Hardly the reality of the time.

The Shinawatras have a long history of not wanting transparency and openness to discuss matters, whether it is the opposition at the time or the media.

Yingluck is simply carrying on the family tradition as the anointed clone.

.

Edited May 24, 2011 by Buchholz

[samurai]

If she debates with Abhisit, she gives him media exposure. That's why she's doing campaigning instead, because the Thai media are excited enough by her that they'll report every little thing she does, even if she sneezes or poops. And every second that they spend running behind her, they don't run behind Abhisit.

Again I would suggest to you that you turn on the news (in Thailand) or open a paper (again in Thailand) .... The other paper yesterday ran 1 article on each ... The news showed both of them. The only reason she wouldn't debate Abhisit is if her handlers thought that she would make a poor showing.

Well, it is not only the number of articles published that are about Abhist or how many airtime he gets on TV. The question is does anyone really read the articles or watches Abhisit on TV? Does he have an audience?

A: Not really.

Like I pointed it out above, to trick people into reading something about Abhisit and the Democrats they even add Abhisit news to reports about Yingluck famous "shedding rears" performances.

We don't have really stats, about how many people read Abhisit articles compared with Yingluck articles or pay attention when they appear on TV, but we have the internet.

And the internat gives us some stats. Lets look at them and keep in mind that according to a recent thread here, the Democats are new social media freaks and heavy user of these channels.

The Google search volume index for Yingluck, Abhist and Thaksin:

http://tinyurl.com/44ukxq2

[rubl]

If she debates with Abhisit, she gives him media exposure. That's why she's doing campaigning instead, because the Thai media are excited enough by her that they'll report every little thing she does, even if she sneezes or poops. And every second that they spend running behind her, they don't run behind Abhisit.

Again I would suggest to you that you turn on the news (in Thailand) or open a paper (again in Thailand) .... The other paper yesterday ran 1 article on each ... The news showed both of them. The only reason she wouldn't debate Abhisit is if her handlers thought that she would make a poor showing.

Well, it is not only the number of articles published that are about Abhist or how many airtime he gets on TV. The question is does anyone really read the articles or watches Abhisit on TV? Does he have an audience?

A: Not really.

Like I pointed it out above, to trick people into reading something about Abhisit and the Democrats they even add Abhisit news to reports about Yingluck famous "shedding rears" performances.

We don't have really stats, about how many people read Abhisit articles compared with Yingluck articles or pay attention when they appear on TV, but we have the internet.

And the internat gives us some stats. Lets look at them and keep in mind that according to a recent thread here, the Democats are new social media freaks and heavy user of these channels.

The Google search volume index for Yingluck, Abhist and Thaksin:

(table removed, no need to show again)

Even in Thai with Ms. Yingluck a new face it seems more than natural that people wonder 'who is this'. No need to do the same for K. Abhisit or k. Thaksin. Also red-shirt have always been good at (mis)using the internet, that's where we can find all those 'interesting clips'.As for Dem's new, heavy social media users, that's more from the providing side, nothing said on receiving.

Anyway, a 'debate' seems out of the question. No time, no need, the voters already know 'Thaksin thinks, Pheu Thai acts'. Makes you wonder why to go through with this democratic election show. Lord and Master has spoken, all rich in six months. 'All for one and more for me'

[samurai]

Even in Thai with Ms. Yingluck a new face it seems more than natural that people wonder 'who is this'. No need to do the same for K. Abhisit or k. Thaksin. Also red-shirt have always been good at (mis)using the internet, that's where we can find all those 'interesting clips'.As for Dem's new, heavy social media users, that's more from the providing side, nothing said on receiving.

Anyway, a 'debate' seems out of the question. No time, no need, the voters already know 'Thaksin thinks, Pheu Thai acts'. Makes you wonder why to go through with this democratic election show. Lord and Master has spoken, all rich in six months. 'All for one and more for me'

Let me tell you what, if this thread wouldn't have Yinglucks name in the title, but were just about Abhisit, nearly no-one would be interested in it.

[rubl]

Even in Thai with Ms. Yingluck a new face it seems more than natural that people wonder 'who is this'. No need to do the same for K. Abhisit or k. Thaksin. Also red-shirt have always been good at (mis)using the internet, that's where we can find all those 'interesting clips'.As for Dem's new, heavy social media users, that's more from the providing side, nothing said on receiving.

Anyway, a 'debate' seems out of the question. No time, no need, the voters already know 'Thaksin thinks, Pheu Thai acts'. Makes you wonder why to go through with this democratic election show. Lord and Master has spoken, all rich in six months. 'All for one and more for me'

Let me tell you what, if this thread wouldn't have Yinglucks name in the title, but were just about Abhisit, nearly no-one would be interested in it.

If we leave out the last two words of the topic title and leave 'Abhisit ready for political debate' there might have been slightly less interest in it. With 'with Yingluck' back in the title we get all the usual trollers, fools and other members. So what?

Still, with or without Ms. Yingluck a debate seems out of the question even when k. Abhisit is ready for it

[jdinasia]

Let me tell you what, if this thread wouldn't have Yinglucks name in the title, but were just about Abhisit, nearly no-one would be interested in it.

I think you are 100% wrong. Abhisit would have issued the challenge to whoever was in the PTP #1 party-list slot ---- with similar results. This thread has longer legs because of her last name but had it been Chavalit (before the PTP's connection to the reds scared him into resigning) or Jatuporn, or Nattuwut or Chalerm it still would have been discussed. The PTP folks still would have declined and looked weak on policy because of it etc etc

[samurai]

Let me tell you what, if this thread wouldn't have Yinglucks name in the title, but were just about Abhisit, nearly no-one would be interested in it.

If we leave out the last two words of the topic title and leave 'Abhisit ready for political debate' there might have been slightly less interest in it.

I gave a thread about the Democrats with a mega teaser headline a second chance. Let see how slightly less the interest for it might be.

[rubl]

Let me tell you what, if this thread wouldn't have Yinglucks name in the title, but were just about Abhisit, nearly no-one would be interested in it.

If we leave out the last two words of the topic title and leave 'Abhisit ready for political debate' there might have been slightly less interest in it.

I gave a thread about the Democrats with a mega teaser headline a second chance. Let see how slightly less the interest for it might be.

Dear samurai, you reply to the part where I said 'so what' and remove the on-topic part. Do you really need that type of teasing?

So let me repeat my full post:

"If we leave out the last two words of the topic title and leave 'Abhisit ready for political debate' there might have been slightly less interest in it. With 'with Yingluck' back in the title we get all the usual trollers, fools and other members. So what?

Still, with or without Ms. Yingluck a debate seems out of the question even when k. Abhisit is ready for it "

[Ricardo]

Still, with or without Ms. Yingluck a debate seems out of the question even when k. Abhisit is ready for it "

Pity, I always enjoyed a good custard-pie fight, in the movies !

Or perhaps top-politicians mud-wrestling, some people might even pay, to see that !

[hyperdimension]

they'll report every little thing she does, even if she sneezes or poops.

I haven't seen any reports of her defecating. I wonder what she thinks of the rural style toilets; she probably has hardly ever used one in her life.

[samurai]

they'll report every little thing she does, even if she sneezes or poops.

I haven't seen any reports of her defecating. I wonder what she thinks of the rural style toilets; she probably has hardly ever used one in her life.

I heard Abhisit is an expert in it.

He isn't one of the nouveau riche like the Shinawatras

[jdinasia]

Still, with or without Ms. Yingluck a debate seems out of the question even when k. Abhisit is ready for it "

Pity, I always enjoyed a good custard-pie fight, in the movies !

Or perhaps top-politicians mud-wrestling, some people might even pay, to see that !

Pffffftttttttt

In the censure debates PTP got to stand on one side and attack --- the Dems and coalition partners had to defend w/o attacking. PTP lost badly even when they could sling mud hoping some would stick and the rest had to just point out the errors. There is no way that the PTP folks could stand the heat if it was a two-way exchange. Think about Abhisit giving a run-down of their roster complete with quotes from last year's redshirt rallies ....

PTP can't afford a debate or even an open discussion.

[473geo]

On the contrary, I think it is Abhisit that should avoid the debate. He will be in a difficult position and he has more to lose that Mme. Yingluck. Here's why;

- The expectation is that he will be able to eat the woman for breakfast as he is more experienced and polished etc. If his opponent can manage to hold her own and get in a few zingers without looking too stupid, she will have beaten expectations and "triumphed". This sort of battle has played out in western countries before and tossed a spanner into campaigns. The bar is set so low for the lady, tha all she basically has to do is show up, and act responsibly and she will get a boost.

- If PM Abhisit is too rough on her, he will risk creating sympathy for the opponent. The misogynists of TVF may not understand that, but a lot of Thai women have thoughts of their own that will cause them to be more open to considering a female candidate. There are some men that will vote against her just because she's a woman, but there are also those that may look upon her as a faithful sister, daughter and that will appeal to inherent Thai family values.

PM Abhisit will have to tread delicately as he will not just be arguing policy, but will be grappling with a lot of psychological and social issues that are part of Thai society. He's got a lot more at stake that his opponent who will go in with he public's rock bottom expectations.

Just thought some people might actually take in what this post is saying........if viewed a second time.....

[ballpoint]

On the contrary, I think it is Abhisit that should avoid the debate. He will be in a difficult position and he has more to lose that Mme. Yingluck. Here's why;

- The expectation is that he will be able to eat the woman for breakfast as he is more experienced and polished etc. If his opponent can manage to hold her own and get in a few zingers without looking too stupid, she will have beaten expectations and "triumphed". This sort of battle has played out in western countries before and tossed a spanner into campaigns. The bar is set so low for the lady, tha all she basically has to do is show up, and act responsibly and she will get a boost.

- If PM Abhisit is too rough on her, he will risk creating sympathy for the opponent. The misogynists of TVF may not understand that, but a lot of Thai women have thoughts of their own that will cause them to be more open to considering a female candidate. There are some men that will vote against her just because she's a woman, but there are also those that may look upon her as a faithful sister, daughter and that will appeal to inherent Thai family values.

PM Abhisit will have to tread delicately as he will not just be arguing policy, but will be grappling with a lot of psychological and social issues that are part of Thai society. He's got a lot more at stake that his opponent who will go in with he public's rock bottom expectations.

Just thought some people might actually take in what this post is saying........if viewed a second time.....

As I asked when this post first came out, but wasn't given any reply: The evidence would suggest otherwise. If a debate will benefit Yingluck then why are the Democrats pushing for a one, while the PTP are running scared of one? I'm sure both sides have weighed up the pros and cons, and both have come to the same conclusion - it would benefit the Democrats. What is said above is just a poorly thought out attempt to put some kind of positive spin on a PTP weakness.

[473geo]

On the contrary, I think it is Abhisit that should avoid the debate. He will be in a difficult position and he has more to lose that Mme. Yingluck. Here's why;

- The expectation is that he will be able to eat the woman for breakfast as he is more experienced and polished etc. If his opponent can manage to hold her own and get in a few zingers without looking too stupid, she will have beaten expectations and "triumphed". This sort of battle has played out in western countries before and tossed a spanner into campaigns. The bar is set so low for the lady, tha all she basically has to do is show up, and act responsibly and she will get a boost.

- If PM Abhisit is too rough on her, he will risk creating sympathy for the opponent. The misogynists of TVF may not understand that, but a lot of Thai women have thoughts of their own that will cause them to be more open to considering a female candidate. There are some men that will vote against her just because she's a woman, but there are also those that may look upon her as a faithful sister, daughter and that will appeal to inherent Thai family values.

PM Abhisit will have to tread delicately as he will not just be arguing policy, but will be grappling with a lot of psychological and social issues that are part of Thai society. He's got a lot more at stake that his opponent who will go in with he public's rock bottom expectations.

Just thought some people might actually take in what this post is saying........if viewed a second time.....

As I asked when this post first came out, but wasn't given any reply: The evidence would suggest otherwise. If a debate will benefit Yingluck then why are the Democrats pushing for a one, while the PTP are running scared of one? I'm sure both sides have weighed up the pros and cons, and both have come to the same conclusion - it would benefit the Democrats. What is said above is just a poorly thought out attempt to put some kind of positive spin on a PTP weakness.

Because in order to have all invited parties attend to make this 'debate' work, the TV company has to ensure no party will lose face, the sort of pithy debate you and others are envisaging just will not happen. You are talking about a situation that nobody will allow to arise, especially in Thailand. But you don't seem to have the ability to take this on board. You miss this major point in your quest to make Yingluck the scapegoat if the 'debate' does not happen.

[samurai]

As I asked when this post first came out, but wasn't given any reply: The evidence would suggest otherwise. If a debate will benefit Yingluck then why are the Democrats pushing for a one, while the PTP are running scared of one? I'm sure both sides have weighed up the pros and cons, and both have come to the same conclusion - it would benefit the Democrats. What is said above is just a poorly thought out attempt to put some kind of positive spin on a PTP weakness.

The Dem's are not that smart and Yingluck has no time to waste it with them.

Everyone should have understand it by now. Abhisit is history.

And yes, the geriatric dude has a false impression how a debate would be. Abhisit is just deadly boring

[ballpoint]

Because in order to have all invited parties attend to make this 'debate' work, the TV company has to ensure no party will lose face, the sort of pithy debate you and others are envisaging just will not happen. You are talking about a situation that nobody will allow to arise, especially in Thailand. But you don't seem to have the ability to take this on board. You miss this major point in your quest to make Yingluck the scapegoat if the 'debate' does not happen.

My god, you're right! Both major parties don't seem to have the ability to take what you said on board and are making the same mistake I am! What a load of tosh.

[jdinasia]

Because in order to have all invited parties attend to make this 'debate' work, the TV company has to ensure no party will lose face, the sort of pithy debate you and others are envisaging just will not happen. You are talking about a situation that nobody will allow to arise, especially in Thailand. But you don't seem to have the ability to take this on board. You miss this major point in your quest to make Yingluck the scapegoat if the 'debate' does not happen.

My god, you're right! Both major parties don't seem to have the ability to take what you said on board and are making the same mistake I am! What a load of tosh.

Hmmmm we can assume that Geo never has watched a censure debate What has to be agreed upon at the outset is the basic rules. Abhsist isn't afraid of a fair debate even if he has to answer pointed questions about coalition partners. Hell, think of the mileage the reds ... err PTP .... errr Thaksin could get out of trying to burn Kasit in one of their 5 minute sections ..... ooops .... that would open the door for the attacks on Natthawut, Jatuporn, Weng. etc etc etc ......

There is only one major party that would be afraid of a debate ... and it isn't the Dems.

[ballpoint]

Because in order to have all invited parties attend to make this 'debate' work, the TV company has to ensure no party will lose face, the sort of pithy debate you and others are envisaging just will not happen. You are talking about a situation that nobody will allow to arise, especially in Thailand. But you don't seem to have the ability to take this on board. You miss this major point in your quest to make Yingluck the scapegoat if the 'debate' does not happen.

My god, you're right! Both major parties don't seem to have the ability to take what you said on board and are making the same mistake I am! What a load of tosh.

Hmmmm we can assume that Geo never has watched a censure debate What has to be agreed upon at the outset is the basic rules. Abhsist isn't afraid of a fair debate even if he has to answer pointed questions about coalition partners. Hell, think of the mileage the reds ... err PTP .... errr Thaksin could get out of trying to burn Kasit in one of their 5 minute sections ..... ooops .... that would open the door for the attacks on Natthawut, Jatuporn, Weng. etc etc etc ......

There is only one major party that would be afraid of a debate ... and it isn't the Dems.

Perfectly correct. Abhisit is willing to debate. Yingluck, or rather, her "advisers" is/are not. Yet somehow she is in no way to be considered "the scapegoat" if the debate doesn't take place? Even if everyone else turns up and there's an empty chair, or better yet, a doll with a string hanging out of its back that says "My brother says..." everytime it's pulled, it won't be her fault.

As for "pithy" debate, I can see hard hitting questions like "what is your policy towards...". Abhisit will give a list of what they have already done, against the odds of the global economic downturn and repeated disruptions and violence, and what they intend to do next, followed by Yingluck's "well, after I bring my brother back, he will..." Any follow up question, as to what she will do will be followed up by a practical demonstration of her bursting into tears.

[473geo]

Because in order to have all invited parties attend to make this 'debate' work, the TV company has to ensure no party will lose face, the sort of pithy debate you and others are envisaging just will not happen. You are talking about a situation that nobody will allow to arise, especially in Thailand. But you don't seem to have the ability to take this on board. You miss this major point in your quest to make Yingluck the scapegoat if the 'debate' does not happen.

My god, you're right! Both major parties don't seem to have the ability to take what you said on board and are making the same mistake I am! What a load of tosh.

Hmmmm we can assume that Geo never has watched a censure debate What has to be agreed upon at the outset is the basic rules. Abhsist isn't afraid of a fair debate even if he has to answer pointed questions about coalition partners. Hell, think of the mileage the reds ... err PTP .... errr Thaksin could get out of trying to burn Kasit in one of their 5 minute sections ..... ooops .... that would open the door for the attacks on Natthawut, Jatuporn, Weng. etc etc etc ......

There is only one major party that would be afraid of a debate ... and it isn't the Dems.

Perfectly correct. Abhisit is willing to debate. Yingluck, or rather, her "advisers" is/are not. Yet somehow she is in no way to be considered "the scapegoat" if the debate doesn't take place? Even if everyone else turns up and there's an empty chair, or better yet, a doll with a string hanging out of its back that says "My brother says..." everytime it's pulled, it won't be her fault.

As for "pithy" debate, I can see hard hitting questions like "what is your policy towards...". Abhisit will give a list of what they have already done, against the odds of the global economic downturn and repeated disruptions and violence, and what they intend to do next, followed by Yingluck's "well, after I bring my brother back, he will..." Any follow up question, as to what she will do will be followed up by a practical demonstration of her bursting into tears.

Pure unadulterated hypothetical hot air........what a waste.....you have the perfectly good explanations as to why it will not happen, now you are making up your own imaginary debate....the mind boggles...

[jdinasia]

Hmmmm we can assume that Geo never has watched a censure debate What has to be agreed upon at the outset is the basic rules. Abhsist isn't afraid of a fair debate even if he has to answer pointed questions about coalition partners. Hell, think of the mileage the reds ... err PTP .... errr Thaksin could get out of trying to burn Kasit in one of their 5 minute sections ..... ooops .... that would open the door for the attacks on Natthawut, Jatuporn, Weng. etc etc etc ......

There is only one major party that would be afraid of a debate ... and it isn't the Dems.

Perfectly correct. Abhisit is willing to debate. Yingluck, or rather, her "advisers" is/are not. Yet somehow she is in no way to be considered "the scapegoat" if the debate doesn't take place? Even if everyone else turns up and there's an empty chair, or better yet, a doll with a string hanging out of its back that says "My brother says..." everytime it's pulled, it won't be her fault.

As for "pithy" debate, I can see hard hitting questions like "what is your policy towards...". Abhisit will give a list of what they have already done, against the odds of the global economic downturn and repeated disruptions and violence, and what they intend to do next, followed by Yingluck's "well, after I bring my brother back, he will..." Any follow up question, as to what she will do will be followed up by a practical demonstration of her bursting into tears.

Careful now .... someone might think you were picking on Thaksin's surrogate daughter by mentioning her tears! She deserves our utmost respect for saying one day that the amnesty for her brother was a low priority and the very next day putting Chalerm in charge of the amnesty! We shouldn't think back to when she cried in court and yet the court still decided that she was not telling the truth. Until someone actually says "but she said ... and the court ruled .... thus it was perjury" ... to the EC, She is safe

I am assuming that nobody from the Dems will mention it officially to the EC until the 30 day "switching party" limit has been reached. Then when she may be bumped out leaving Party-List #2 to move up .......

[473geo]

Because in order to have all invited parties attend to make this 'debate' work, the TV company has to ensure no party will lose face, the sort of pithy debate you and others are envisaging just will not happen. You are talking about a situation that nobody will allow to arise, especially in Thailand. But you don't seem to have the ability to take this on board. You miss this major point in your quest to make Yingluck the scapegoat if the 'debate' does not happen.

My god, you're right! Both major parties don't seem to have the ability to take what you said on board and are making the same mistake I am! What a load of tosh.

Hmmmm we can assume that Geo never has watched a censure debate What has to be agreed upon at the outset is the basic rules. Abhsist isn't afraid of a fair debate even if he has to answer pointed questions about coalition partners. Hell, think of the mileage the reds ... err PTP .... errr Thaksin could get out of trying to burn Kasit in one of their 5 minute sections ..... ooops .... that would open the door for the attacks on Natthawut, Jatuporn, Weng. etc etc etc ......

There is only one major party that would be afraid of a debate ... and it isn't the Dems.

You are telling me that in a censure debate, the participants are invited to attend, and can decline? Thought not, there is simply no comparison with a TV debate where the invitees can decline if the projected format does not suit. I worked for a while in the TV industry and know the hoops you have to jump through to have some celebrity do a simple voice over for a commercial!

So my point I think is well made but you choose to ignore the obvious, pre-scripted questions which the attendees know in advance, that will allow them to comfortably table their agenda for being the next government. Or quite simply they will decline the invitation. Perhaps on the simple premise that they feel the message is being circulated at grass roots level, and some glitzy TV show may not even reach most of their intended audience. Whatever the reason for any person to decline that is their free choice, and of course if the masses believe the reason for absence is the party have no policies for government, then that party would surely suffer at the polls.........perhaps only the most confident would therefore risk non attendance.....

Yes the democrats appear very keen.......

[sbk]

off topic bickering removed

[Siripon]

Sorrayud of Channel 3 is known throughout Thailand and the last 2 weeks he has had politicians such as Korn, Banharn, Chuwit, Plodprasop, Sirichoke on his early evening spot.His programmes are watched by millions.

Hopefully he'll invite Apisit and Yingluk on together- but of course big brother has already told her not to debate with Apisit, but who knows? Maybe she'll be a naughty girl and break out of her clone cocoon!

[473geo]

Sorrayud of Channel 3 is known throughout Thailand and the last 2 weeks he has had politicians such as Korn, Banharn, Chuwit, Plodprasop, Sirichoke on his early evening spot.His programmes are watched by millions.

Hopefully he'll invite Apisit and Yingluk on together- but of course big brother has already told her not to debate with Apisit, but who knows? Maybe she'll be a naughty girl and break out of her clone cocoon!

why bring on Abhisit and Yingluck, surely Korn has already swayed the uncertain voters............

[LindsayBKK]

Pheu Thai decided not to have Yingluck debate Abhisit, saying that the Pheu Thai Party

policies had already been outlined, and so debates would be unwarranted.

Pheu Thai Party sounds like they're trying to shield Yingluck from being exposed.

The Election Commission should organise the debates, and if a party declines,

its time should be given to its opponent. The main goal should be to inform voters, not to shield weaklings.