Abhisit Won't Stand Against Yingluck

[webfact]

Abhisit won't stand against Yingluck

By THE NATION

Outgoing Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva said yesterday that the winning Pheu Thai Party should be allowed to nominate its candidate for the position of prime minister uncontested.

Abhisit ruled out speculation he would stand against Pheu Thai candidate Yingluck Shinawatra in the race for the top job when the House of Representatives convenes to elect the new prime minister next month.

"I think the position of prime minister should not be contested, because Pheu Thai has achieved a simple majority, which is a clear mandate," he said.

Commenting on the future of his party, he said he wanted fellow Democrats to reflect on the poll defeat in a bid to try to chart a new course.

He said he had not had time to think about whether he would accept a second nomination to lead the party if asked by the Democrats.

The issue of party leadership should not be decided by personal attachment to any individual, he said.

He felt he was not in a position to chart the course for his party, since he had led the election campaign and lost.

"I have already resigned my party leadership, hence this is not the time to air my views."

Meanwhile, prime minister-designate Yingluck should step out of ex-PM Thaksin Shinawatra's shadow to avoid an early collapse of her government, senior Democrat Suthep Thaugsuban said yesterday.

"If Yingluck governs under Thaksin's orders, the Pheu Thai-led government will see a quick end due to a lack of credibility," he said.

Suthep said the people's mandate given to Pheu Thai did not mean that any attempts to trample the rule of law would be tolerated. He warned the incoming government that turmoil would erupt again if an amnesty were granted to an individual such as Thaksin.

-- The Nation 2011-07-06

[bushwacker]

Meanwhile, prime minister-designate Yingluck should step out of ex-PM Thaksin Shinawatra's shadow to avoid an early collapse of her government, senior Democrat Suthep Thaugsuban said yesterday.

"If Yingluck governs under Thaksin's orders, the Pheu Thai-led government will see a quick end due to a lack of credibility," he said.

Where has senior Democrat Suthep Thaugsuban been for the last several months? Does he think before he talks?

Let me see ....

1. Everybody knows that Pheu Thai is Mr. T's party.

2. Mr T picked Ms. Yinglack to run the election.

3. Mr T said she was his clone and he probably would not let her be Prime minister.

4. Ms. Yinglack said she would not be PM because she lacks the experience.

5. The Pheu Thai and coalition is well over the simple majority needed to elect the PM.

So how is it this Senior Democrat thinks the new government will be defeated?

Blah blah blah ... :jap:

[wackysleet]

Meanwhile, prime minister-designate Yingluck should step out of ex-PM Thaksin Shinawatra's shadow to avoid an early collapse of her government, senior Democrat Suthep Thaugsuban said yesterday.

"If Yingluck governs under Thaksin's orders, the Pheu Thai-led government will see a quick end due to a lack of credibility," he said.

Where has senior Democrat Suthep Thaugsuban been for the last several months? Does he think before he talks?

Let me see ....

1. Everybody knows that Pheu Thai is Mr. T's party.

2. Mr T picked Ms. Yinglack to run the election.

3. Mr T said she was his clone and he probably would not let her be Prime minister.

4. Ms. Yinglack said she would not be PM because she lacks the experience.

5. The Pheu Thai and coalition is well over the simple majority needed to elect the PM.

So how is it this Senior Democrat thinks the new government will be defeated?

Blah blah blah ... :jap:

With him it's simply a case of the kettle calling the pot black. the man is a bloody disgrace to the name of politics and that's saying something in this country.

[WinnieTheKhwai]

Where has senior Democrat Suthep Thaugsuban been for the last several months? Does he think before he talks?

No. And also not after he talks.

[looping]

Abhisit is a man of honor, integrity and dignity. Unfortunately these are qualities which don't win elections in Thailand. Thaksin on the other hand possesses various other 'qualities' which have assured his victory. Sad state of affairs.

[webfact]

Applause For Abhisit

Follow this link:

[landofthefree]

Abhisit is a man of honor, integrity and dignity. Unfortunately these are qualities which don't win elections in Thailand. Thaksin on the other hand possesses various other 'qualities' which have assured his victory. Sad state of affairs.

It shoud say Abhisit won't stand a chance against Yingluck!

[pisico]

Abhisit is a man of honor, integrity and dignity. Unfortunately these are qualities which don't win elections in Thailand. Thaksin on the other hand possesses various other 'qualities' which have assured his victory. Sad state of affairs.

It shoud say Abhisit won't stand a chance against Yingluck!

Smart man after all: he knows when to throw the towel.

On the other hand Suthep...

Edited July 6, 2011 by pisico

[RickBradford]

Yet the Thai press points out a simple problem -- when the Democrat Party bigwigs (known in Thai as the "Ice Cream Gang" -- no idea why) cast around for a leader, they always come back to one name -- Abhisit. They currently cannot find anyone who comes close to Abhisit's leadership credentials.

[rubl]

Yet the Thai press points out a simple problem -- when the Democrat Party bigwigs (known in Thai as the "Ice Cream Gang" -- no idea why) cast around for a leader, they always come back to one name -- Abhisit. They currently cannot find anyone who comes close to Abhisit's leadership credentials.

Imagine the party which hasn't anyone coming close to leadership credentials and having to resort to a newbie female who smiles nicely

Edited July 6, 2011 by rubl

[phiphidon]

Yet the Thai press points out a simple problem -- when the Democrat Party bigwigs (known in Thai as the "Ice Cream Gang" -- no idea why) cast around for a leader, they always come back to one name -- Abhisit. They currently cannot find anyone who comes close to Abhisit's leadership credentials.

Imagine the party which hasn't anyone coming close to leadership credentials and having to resort to a newbie female who smiles nicely

And still gets to form the next government - must be a real kick in the teeth for the democrats. 19 years and counting.

[rubl]

Yet the Thai press points out a simple problem -- when the Democrat Party bigwigs (known in Thai as the "Ice Cream Gang" -- no idea why) cast around for a leader, they always come back to one name -- Abhisit. They currently cannot find anyone who comes close to Abhisit's leadership credentials.

Imagine the party which hasn't anyone coming close to leadership credentials and having to resort to a newbie female who smiles nicely

And still gets to form the next government - must be a real kick in the teeth for the democrats. 19 years and counting.

True, true. Mind you, I was trying to ignore the brain of the party, you know, the chap who wasn't participating in this election

[473geo]

Yet the Thai press points out a simple problem -- when the Democrat Party bigwigs (known in Thai as the "Ice Cream Gang" -- no idea why) cast around for a leader, they always come back to one name -- Abhisit. They currently cannot find anyone who comes close to Abhisit's leadership credentials.

Imagine the party which hasn't anyone coming close to leadership credentials and having to resort to a newbie female who smiles nicely

And still gets to form the next government - must be a real kick in the teeth for the democrats. 19 years and counting.

True, true. Mind you, I was trying to ignore the brain of the party, you know, the chap who wasn't participating in this election

Shouldn't you be refecting on the poll defeat and trying to chart a new course..........

[rubl]

Imagine the party which hasn't anyone coming close to leadership credentials and having to resort to a newbie female who smiles nicely

And still gets to form the next government - must be a real kick in the teeth for the democrats. 19 years and counting.

True, true. Mind you, I was trying to ignore the brain of the party, you know, the chap who wasn't participating in this election

Shouldn't you be refecting on the poll defeat and trying to chart a new course..........

Reflecting on the 'election defeat' ? Too many already did that here, nothing to add. Charting a new course? My dear chap, who am I to try to meddle in Thai politics, I'm not even allowed to vote. I leave the charting to those who are legally in the position to do so.

[hammered]

Yet the Thai press points out a simple problem -- when the Democrat Party bigwigs (known in Thai as the "Ice Cream Gang" -- no idea why) cast around for a leader, they always come back to one name -- Abhisit. They currently cannot find anyone who comes close to Abhisit's leadership credentials.

That is a humongous problem not just for the democrat party but for the country which needs a viable electoral alternative. The irony is even after billions are banned the PTP had people fighting to be its leader, and yet the behind closed doors and not in public party that likes to choose a pre-groomed leander for a lengthy period now finds its own conservative nature and inability to change even in a decade undermines not only its ability to get elected but also its ability to even initiate the change it needs to overcome this. For the sake of the country (and all democracies need a couple of viable potential ruling partues) if nothing else the Dems need to make very hard decisions and abandoning any idea of Abhisit as leader would be the first, and breaking up the inward, backward and to the past looking cabal that controls everything form their southern and bangkok bastions while shafting any potential from the Isaan and East (the past years or so saw them do this) or driving out Northerners would be a very close second.

[ajarnmark]

Abhisit is a man of honor, integrity and dignity. Unfortunately these are qualities which don't win elections in Thailand. Thaksin on the other hand possesses various other 'qualities' which have assured his victory. Sad state of affairs.

Abhisit is a man of what?

So you agree that having this qualities he could never win the elections (and actually he never won an election) and therefore it is true that his government was illegitimate as Thaksin has always been the legitimate PM... :jap:

[MAJIC]

Abhisit is a man of honor, integrity and dignity. Unfortunately these are qualities which don't win elections in Thailand. Thaksin on the other hand possesses various other 'qualities' which have assured his victory. Sad state of affairs.

It shoud say Abhisit won't stand a chance against Yingluck!

Oh! so that's why Yingluck declined a Televised Dedate with Abhisit,is it?

[rubl]

Abhisit is a man of honor, integrity and dignity. Unfortunately these are qualities which don't win elections in Thailand. Thaksin on the other hand possesses various other 'qualities' which have assured his victory. Sad state of affairs.

Abhisit is a man of what?

So you agree that having this qualities he could never win the elections (and actually he never won an election) and therefore it is true that his government was illegitimate as Thaksin has always been the legitimate PM... :jap:

Not sure you're a teacher, but most likely not involved in math or logic.

If k. Abhisit could or never did win an election, it doesn't follow that his government must therefor be illegal. His was a coalition with a majority of legally elected MPs electing him as PM.

Furthermore k. Thaksin was the legitimate PM from 2001 till February 2006. From February - April 2006 he was caretaker PM. Following the April elections he was PM for a month till the elections were declared invalid. He became caretaker PM again and had to call for elections within 45/60 days. He was caretaker PM for a few days, handed over to his depute and went on holiday. Coming back he took the reings again without proper edorsement and started to break down check and balances to ensure 'TRT can and will rule for twenty years'. Etc., etc., etc. K. Thaksin stopped being either legal PM or legal caretaker PM.

In other words there has been a time when k. Abhisit was the legal PM just as k. Thaksin was an illegal (caretaker) PM. nothing more, nothing less

Edited July 10, 2011 by rubl

[Siam Simon]

Abhisit is a man of honor, integrity and dignity. Unfortunately these are qualities which don't win elections in Thailand. Thaksin on the other hand possesses various other 'qualities' which have assured his victory. Sad state of affairs.

Abhisit is a man of what?

So you agree that having this qualities he could never win the elections (and actually he never won an election) and therefore it is true that his government was illegitimate as Thaksin has always been the legitimate PM... :jap:

Not sure you're a teacher, but most likely not involved in math or logic.

If k. Abhisit could or never did win an election, it doesn't follow that his government must therefor be illegal. His was a coalition with a majority of legally elected MPs electing him as PM.

Furthermore k. Thaksin was the legitimate PM from 2001 till February 2006. From February - April 2006 he was caretaker PM. Following the April elections he was PM for a month till the elections were declared invalid. He became caretaker PM again and had to call for elections within 45/60 days. He was caretaker PM for a few days, handed over to his depute and went on holiday. Coming back he took the reings again without proper edorsement and started to break down check and balances to ensure 'TRT can and will rule for twenty years'. Etc., etc., etc. K. Thaksin stopped being either legal PM or legal caretaker PM.

In other words there has been a time when k. Abhisit was the legal PM just as k. Thaksin was an illegal (caretaker) PM. nothing more, nothing less

But how could Abhisit become the legal PM when his coalition was formed with the assistance of a banned politician?

Tell you what, uncle Rubl, I'll answer my own question: The Army facilitated it and nobody in a nominal position to do so would take on the Army.

[rubl]

But how could Abhisit become the legal PM when his coalition was formed with the assistance of a banned politician?

Tell you what, uncle Rubl, I'll answer my own question: The Army facilitated it and nobody in a nominal position to do so would take on the Army.

Young master Simon, how do you know the k. Abhisit led coalition was formed with assistance of a banned politician? Any proof of that, proof, not indications, insinuations, rumours; proof?

Do you really believe that after two Thaksin proxy governments a third one had a real chance to be formed? Apart from legal aspects we are also talking about politicians here. Those funny specimens of the human race do not need any help, they have a well developed sense of self-preservation. Not only those in Thailand by the way.

[Siam Simon]

But how could Abhisit become the legal PM when his coalition was formed with the assistance of a banned politician?

Tell you what, uncle Rubl, I'll answer my own question: The Army facilitated it and nobody in a nominal position to do so would take on the Army.

Young master Simon, how do you know the k. Abhisit led coalition was formed with assistance of a banned politician? Any proof of that, proof, not indications, insinuations, rumours; proof?

Do you really believe that after two Thaksin proxy governments a third one had a real chance to be formed? Apart from legal aspects we are also talking about politicians here. Those funny specimens of the human race do not need any help, they have a well developed sense of self-preservation. Not only those in Thailand by the way.

Dear uncle Rubl, there has been enough propaganda and prevarication posted on these threads by some posters on all sides to last us a lifetime. I thought you were above that nonsense.

The "third" government (of whatever political persuasion) should have been formed via a general election. The fact that it wasn't goes back to my first point about electoral law being overridden by the military (now there's a surprise).

[rubl]

The "third" government (of whatever political persuasion) should have been formed via a general election. The fact that it wasn't goes back to my first point about electoral law being overridden by the military (now there's a surprise).

You just say, but do not clarify or proof that a third gvernment should have been formed via a new general election. The House was not dissolved, almost all MPs still legal elected MPs, so why? Assuming there's no sufficient stringent, legal reason to dissolve the House and call for new general elections, 'the fact that it wasn't' is just a statement like 'so it needn't'

[binjalin]

_{well at least he got one thing right! he led the Dems to a defeat worse than at the last election - the Thais simply dont want the Dems as clearly demonstrated - they lost}

[whybother]

_{well at least he got one thing right! he led the Dems to a defeat worse than at the last election - the Thais simply dont want the Dems as clearly demonstrated - they lost}

The Thais don't clearly want PTP either. They couldn't get a majority of voters to vote for them.

[lannarebirth]

_{well at least he got one thing right! he led the Dems to a defeat worse than at the last election - the Thais simply dont want the Dems as clearly demonstrated - they lost}

From talking to Thais I know who were previously Democrat supporters but did not vote for them in this last election; the reason their support was lost is because they feel Abhisit should have been MUCH tougher during the Red Shirt demonstrations. They don't credit him for being either humane or conciliatory. They merely saw him as ineffectual. They have no idea how close they came to having a failed state and how close they remain still.

[rubl]

well at least he got one thing right! he led the Dems to a defeat worse than at the last election - the Thais simply dont want the Dems as clearly demonstrated - they lost

"The Thai" ? Well, at least 35% of proportional votes were Dem's and they won 115 constituency seats. A defeat yes, but hardly 'THE THAI' don't want Dem's

[hammered]

_{well at least he got one thing right! he led the Dems to a defeat worse than at the last election - the Thais simply dont want the Dems as clearly demonstrated - they lost}

From talking to Thais I know who were previously Democrat supporters but did not vote for them in this last election; the reason their support was lost is because they feel Abhisit should have been MUCH tougher during the Red Shirt demonstrations. They don't credit him for being either humane or conciliatory. They merely saw him as ineffectual. They have no idea how close they came to having a failed state and how close they remain still.

That doesnt explain the ex-Dem voters who abandoned them for the PTP though although I do agree that he was seen as ineffectual by some previous supporters. It also doesnt explain the loss of 7 Chonburi seats