Thaksin Tells Pheu Thai Ministers To Resign Party-List Mps

[Crushdepth]

Does being a minister give your parliamentary immunity, the same as being an MP?

No. But on the bright side, whoever replaces them (the next people on the party list) will.

[Orac]

Does being a minister give your parliamentary immunity, the same as being an MP?

No. But on the bright side, whoever replaces them (the next people on the party list) will.

Maybe this is why non of the red shirt leaders are in the cabinet - wouldn't want them to lose their immunity!

[YellowFeverCAD]

If you were Thai, there is a good chance you would not be offended.......therein lies the difference......highlighting your misconception of Thai people and politics

Oddly enough I know a LOT of Thai people and many of them are already pissed off at this gov't and a lot of the grass roots red shirt supporters are grumbling already.

But of course you know better than those silly Thai people go on tell them what they think

[473geo]

I seem to be missing your evidence as proof it is not.....

I asked for a reason, i didn't make a claim. You did, or at least you inferred it, and don't now dispute it, so it's up to you to give reasoning. Don't be afraid to say there is none.

Strange as you cut the very line out of my post that supported my reasoning.......

[473geo]

If you were Thai, there is a good chance you would not be offended.......therein lies the difference......highlighting your misconception of Thai people and politics

Oddly enough I know a LOT of Thai people and many of them are already pissed off at this gov't and a lot of the grass roots red shirt supporters are grumbling already.

But of course you know better than those silly Thai people go on tell them what they think

My response gave no indication that the Thai were in any way 'silly'......your insult to the Thai people not mine

You are telling me that the LOT of Thai people you know are grumbling about the use of 'Thaksin','legal'and 'government' in one sentence.....

[rubl]

If you were Thai, there is a good chance you would not be offended.......therein lies the difference......highlighting your misconception of Thai people and politics

Oddly enough I know a LOT of Thai people and many of them are already pissed off at this gov't and a lot of the grass roots red shirt supporters are grumbling already.

But of course you know better than those silly Thai people go on tell them what they think

My response gave no indication that the Thai were in any way 'silly'......your insult to the Thai people not mine

You are telling me that the LOT of Thai people you know are grumbling about the use of 'Thaksin','legal'and 'government' in one sentence.....

What YFC was saying was "many of them are already pissed off at this gov't". The "'Thaksin','legal'and 'government' in one sentence" was from me. Try to stick to what individual posters say without mixing remarks and then asking 'you telling me?'

Don't try to suggest someone said something and ask why he did so. It seems incorrect. On this forum you'll find enough stupid remarks to complain about without the need to fabricate some yourself, IMHO of course

[473geo]

If you were Thai, there is a good chance you would not be offended.......therein lies the difference......highlighting your misconception of Thai people and politics

Oddly enough I know a LOT of Thai people and many of them are already pissed off at this gov't and a lot of the grass roots red shirt supporters are grumbling already.

But of course you know better than those silly Thai people go on tell them what they think

My response gave no indication that the Thai were in any way 'silly'......your insult to the Thai people not mine

You are telling me that the LOT of Thai people you know are grumbling about the use of 'Thaksin','legal'and 'government' in one sentence.....

What YFC was saying was "many of them are already pissed off at this gov't". The "'Thaksin','legal'and 'government' in one sentence" was from me. Try to stick to what individual posters say without mixing remarks and then asking 'you telling me?'

Don't try to suggest someone said something and ask why he did so. It seems incorrect. On this forum you'll find enough stupid remarks to complain about without the need to fabricate some yourself, IMHO of course

Initially I made a response to your post Rubl.........if a person chooses to respond to or comment on that response, they must surely take into account the content of the orginal post to which the comment referred. Otherwise the post is taken out of context.......I pointed out the context in which the comment was made....which I feel is probably acceptable to all but the deliberately obtuse.

Now enough off topic drivel don't you think?

[rubl]

Oddly enough I know a LOT of Thai people and many of them are already pissed off at this gov't and a lot of the grass roots red shirt supporters are grumbling already.

But of course you know better than those silly Thai people go on tell them what they think

My response gave no indication that the Thai were in any way 'silly'......your insult to the Thai people not mine

You are telling me that the LOT of Thai people you know are grumbling about the use of 'Thaksin','legal'and 'government' in one sentence.....

What YFC was saying was "many of them are already pissed off at this gov't". The "'Thaksin','legal'and 'government' in one sentence" was from me. Try to stick to what individual posters say without mixing remarks and then asking 'you telling me?'

Don't try to suggest someone said something and ask why he did so. It seems incorrect. On this forum you'll find enough stupid remarks to complain about without the need to fabricate some yourself, IMHO of course

Initially I made a response to your post Rubl.........if a person chooses to respond to or comment on that response, they must surely take into account the content of the orginal post to which the comment referred. Otherwise the post is taken out of context.......I pointed out the context in which the comment was made....which I feel is probably acceptable to all but the deliberately obtuse.

Now enough off topic drivel don't you think?

Drivel? Your words, not mine. Anyway, I have a reasonable memory and I'm not surprised to see either "the post is taken out of context" or all those simple dots.

Most posters reply to part of a post, mostly the part they include in their reply. They may reply to replies rather than the original post someone replied on. Then there is no need to consider the contents of the original post, one just replies to a reply which one deems incorrect. To suggest that a reply means to put into context all of previous posts/replies on them is your opinion, but not necessary to do.

Didn't you ever see a reply to a post where you wondered about that reply rather than the post replied to? Don't you ... ever .... wonder ..... or do you ...... only tell ..... explain .... what I think ... you mean ?

Edited August 13, 2011 by rubl

[473geo]

[rixalex]

I seem to be missing your evidence as proof it is not.....

I asked for a reason, i didn't make a claim. You did, or at least you inferred it, and don't now dispute it, so it's up to you to give reasoning. Don't be afraid to say there is none.

Strange as you cut the very line out of my post that supported my reasoning.......

Cut out because reasoning for why you are better placed to speak for how Thai people feel than rubl is not to be found in pointing to one newspaper article.

[Dag]

Thought you not allowed to do that ??

Where is a mod when anarchy is set loose......we crave the ruling discipline

[Crushdepth]

Thought you not allowed to do that ??

Where is a mod when anarchy is set loose......we crave the ruling discipline

Yingluck's busy right now. But you now what you have to do...resign your seat sir! Otherwise there'll be a harikari diktat after lunch.

[sungod]

Does being a minister give your parliamentary immunity, the same as being an MP?

No. But on the bright side, whoever replaces them (the next people on the party list) will.

Maybe this is why non of the red shirt leaders are in the cabinet - wouldn't want them to lose their immunity!

Which was going to be my next point if my suspicions were confirmed, the reds were were obviously palmed off with this excuse when no ministerial positions were handed to them. PT will have to keep these guys happy somehow otherwise it will come and bite them back on the ass.

[whybother]

I really don't know about "walk on water" -- But I look at 'these guys" as the political party that has won every election this century.

The result of the most recent election has at least removed the unelected usurpers from office.

The fact that you somehow think your "wisdom" outweighs the wishes of the Thai electorate, says all we need to know about you.

So you still don't understand how coalition governments work?

As strange comments go this is is an absolute winner!! Why on earth would anyone bother with such a weird response. As it turns out I do have a pretty fair understanding of coalition governments....... but .......

So do the Thai people -- I believe that apart from the current political party (on 2 occasions) that only one other Thai Government was ever formed in Thailand without need of a coalition.

'These guys" are the political party that has won every election this century.

What part of winning elections do you have difficulty comprehending?

You seem to think that getting the most votes or the most seats means that a party must be in government. It's irrelevant which party gets the most votes or the most seats. It just matters who can put together a majority.

The last government were made up of elected politicians who formed a coalition. If you understood coalition governments, you wouldn't be calling them "unelected usurpers".

[tig28]

You seem to think that getting the most votes or the most seats means that a party must be in government. It's irrelevant which party gets the most votes or the most seats. It just matters who can put together a majority.

The last government were made up of elected politicians who formed a coalition. If you understood coalition governments, you wouldn't be calling them "unelected usurpers".

Hi whybother

Please be good enough to not put your words in my mouth. Only the foolish it would use the "most votes" method when it is apparent that a party with only 26% of the vote could win the majority of seats in any two party contest --- and with a smaller percentage in any 3+-party contest.

It is generally accepted that the party winning the largest number of seats gets the first opportunity to form the Government -- as indeed has always happened here in Thailand. Indeed as happened after the 2007 election when the PPP were 8 seats short of an outright majority.

Now whybother --- if you feel that the Democrats assumption of power one year after loosing the 2007 election --- is somehow a victory in that election ---- then I stand in awe of your intellectual flexibility.

There is no question that after purchasing the defection of the PPP members known as "the friends of Newin group" the Democrats were able to form a new legal coalition Government . But to imply that they won the 2007 election .......... amazing !!!

By the way .... to assist those who seem confused by the term "this century"---- it means the period of time after the end of the previous century. If that is beyond you -- Google can be your friend ... perhaps.

[Crushdepth]

You seem to think that getting the most votes or the most seats means that a party must be in government. It's irrelevant which party gets the most votes or the most seats. It just matters who can put together a majority.

The last government were made up of elected politicians who formed a coalition. If you understood coalition governments, you wouldn't be calling them "unelected usurpers".

Hi whybother

Please be good enough to not put your words in my mouth. Only the foolish it would use the "most votes" method when it is apparent that a party with only 26% of the vote could win the majority of seats in any two party contest --- and with a smaller percentage in any 3+-party contest.

It is generally accepted that the party winning the largest number of seats gets the first opportunity to form the Government -- as indeed has always happened here in Thailand. Indeed as happened after the 2007 election when the PPP were 8 seats short of an outright majority.

Now whybother --- if you feel that the Democrats assumption of power one year after loosing the 2007 election --- is somehow a victory in that election ---- then I stand in awe of your intellectual flexibility.

There is no question that after purchasing the defection of the PPP members known as "the friends of Newin group" the Democrats were able to form a new legal coalition Government . But to imply that they won the 2007 election .......... amazing !!!

By the way .... to assist those who seem confused by the term "this century"---- it means the period of time after the end of the previous century. If that is beyond you -- Google can be your friend ... perhaps.

Try to understand: If your party is dissolved for electoral fraud, you didn't "win" the election, you lost. There are no exceptions. Clear?

You are also entirely wrong in thinking that the party winning the most seats has an inherent "right" to form a government first. It is simply who can control the majority of seats. The party with 'the most' seats has a competitive advantage but can often be overpowered by a coalition of smaller parties.

And yes, before you launch into "The People..." rant, a coalition government is just as valid as a single-party government. There is no requirement for coalition partners to sit around waiting to see if someone else can form a government.

Edited August 15, 2011 by Crushdepth

[whybother]

You seem to think that getting the most votes or the most seats means that a party must be in government. It's irrelevant which party gets the most votes or the most seats. It just matters who can put together a majority.

The last government were made up of elected politicians who formed a coalition. If you understood coalition governments, you wouldn't be calling them "unelected usurpers".

Hi whybother

Please be good enough to not put your words in my mouth. Only the foolish it would use the "most votes" method when it is apparent that a party with only 26% of the vote could win the majority of seats in any two party contest --- and with a smaller percentage in any 3+-party contest.

It is generally accepted that the party winning the largest number of seats gets the first opportunity to form the Government -- as indeed has always happened here in Thailand. Indeed as happened after the 2007 election when the PPP were 8 seats short of an outright majority.

Now whybother --- if you feel that the Democrats assumption of power one year after loosing the 2007 election --- is somehow a victory in that election ---- then I stand in awe of your intellectual flexibility.

There is no question that after purchasing the defection of the PPP members known as "the friends of Newin group" the Democrats were able to form a new legal coalition Government . But to imply that they won the 2007 election .......... amazing !!!

By the way .... to assist those who seem confused by the term "this century"---- it means the period of time after the end of the previous century. If that is beyond you -- Google can be your friend ... perhaps.

Wow ... talk about putting words in mouths ...

Where have I implied anything about anyone winning the 2007 election??? Did I even mention the 2007 election? I certainly didn't mention anything about previous elections, even ones in the last century.

You called the last government "unelected", but name any one of the MPs in the last government that were unelected.

Winning the most seats gives a party the first opportunity to form government, but it doesn't give them the right to be in government. If they can't form a majority, then they don't have a right to be in government. And that applies at any time that a parliamentary election for PM (which is what really defines who is in government) might happen.

[MunterHunter]

But they won the election, so they can do whatever they god-d*mn please, right... regardless of laws of the land or the spirit of democracy, they are in power and therefore are totally unaccountable for any of their actions, past, present or future.

And god forbid anyone stands in their way whilst they consolidate their power base and reverse all the decisions made during their time in opposition, for these are truly the enemies of Democracy and should be stacked up in big trucks until they be dead dead dead...

[tig28]

Try to understand: If your party is dissolved for electoral fraud, you didn't "win" the election, you lost. There are no exceptions. Clear?

You are also entirely wrong in thinking that the party winning the most seats has an inherent "right" to form a government first. It is simply who can control the majority of seats. The party with 'the most' seats has a competitive advantage but can often be overpowered by a coalition of smaller parties.

And yes, before you launch into "The People..." rant, a coalition government is just as valid as a single-party government. There is no requirement for coalition partners to sit around waiting to see if someone else can form a government.

Hi Crushdepth

"There are no exceptions. Clear? ?"

To you it apparently seems so ... but sadly for your "clear" belief ..... recorded history disagrees. The happenings of Dec 2008 -- have absolutely zero bearing on the result of an election held in Dec 2007 -- they are two entirely different matters. Every reference records the winners of the 2007 election --- just as they record how the PPP lost Government one year later -- and how the Democrats achieved power -- and that certainly was not as result of an election.

"You are also entirely wrong in thinking that the party winning the most seats has an inherent "right" to form a government first. It is simply who can control the majority of seats. The party with 'the most' seats has a competitive advantage but can often be overpowered by a coalition of smaller parties".

Please try to improve your reading comprehension skills before leaping into some distorted rant --- what I stated was "It is generally accepted that the party winning the largest number of seats gets the first opportunity to form the Government" --- as has indeed occurred in every Thai election where a coalition was required.

"a coalition government is just as valid as a single-party government."

Of course it is -- only the truly dim-witted would suggest otherwise!!! Just why did you bring up the subject ???

[hammered]

You seem to think that getting the most votes or the most seats means that a party must be in government. It's irrelevant which party gets the most votes or the most seats. It just matters who can put together a majority.

The last government were made up of elected politicians who formed a coalition. If you understood coalition governments, you wouldn't be calling them "unelected usurpers".

Hi whybother

Please be good enough to not put your words in my mouth. Only the foolish it would use the "most votes" method when it is apparent that a party with only 26% of the vote could win the majority of seats in any two party contest --- and with a smaller percentage in any 3+-party contest.

It is generally accepted that the party winning the largest number of seats gets the first opportunity to form the Government -- as indeed has always happened here in Thailand. Indeed as happened after the 2007 election when the PPP were 8 seats short of an outright majority.

Now whybother --- if you feel that the Democrats assumption of power one year after loosing the 2007 election --- is somehow a victory in that election ---- then I stand in awe of your intellectual flexibility.

There is no question that after purchasing the defection of the PPP members known as "the friends of Newin group" the Democrats were able to form a new legal coalition Government . But to imply that they won the 2007 election .......... amazing !!!

By the way .... to assist those who seem confused by the term "this century"---- it means the period of time after the end of the previous century. If that is beyond you -- Google can be your friend ... perhaps.

I think the formation of the Democrat government on the back of a lot of coalition allies under pressure from the extra-parliamentary forces is well known and not really disputed (even one coalition leader from that time admitted it). Technically it was a legal government even if having no kind of mandate. The people have now judged it and not kindly, so democracy is working well there. They will hopefully at some point in the next 4 years get to judge the Yingluck government as hopefully there wont be any coups etc.

Looking at it from another perspective. The Dems did just about the worst thing they could have done by forming that government under pressure from external forces. In effect they threw away their chance of winning the next vote for two years of government in an alliance they had little control over and with basically no mandate. In retrospect they would have done better to just force an election at the time by refusing the chance of government. Then again they seem in recent times to always be making these mistakes of aligning with the undemocratic. They didnt exactly denounce the coup either. A big change since the heady days of 1993 when they were viewed as an angel party on the side of the people. Now however, people and country have changed and the Dems seem utterly incapable of making the transition themselves but prefer to just wallow in self pity of what should have been and obsessed with Thaksin who they have built up as their own nemesis when they didnt actually have to. Now just think. If they had opposed the coup back in the day, things may have panned out very differently

[rubl]

Begin removed ...

Now just think. If they had opposed the coup back in the day, things may have panned out very differently

I think this should be 'If they had actively opposed the coup ...'. As usual the Dem's and k. Abhisit just stated to be opposed and 'this is not the best way to solve the current crisis'

[tig28]

Wow ... talk about putting words in mouths ...

Where have I implied anything about anyone winning the 2007 election??? Did I even mention the 2007 election? I certainly didn't mention anything about previous elections, even ones in the last century.

You called the last government "unelected", but name any one of the MPs in the last government that were unelected.

Winning the most seats gives a party the first opportunity to form government, but it doesn't give them the right to be in government. If they can't form a majority, then they don't have a right to be in government. And that applies at any time that a parliamentary election for PM (which is what really defines who is in government) might happen.

"Where have I implied anything about anyone winning the 2007 election??? Did I even mention the 2007 election? I certainly didn't mention anything about previous elections, even ones in the last century."

Well you certainly seem to be referring to it now -- perhaps having been subjected to similar tripe in the past I can sort of anticipate where your weird reasoning is headed. Please try to keep up.

"You called the last government "unelected", but name any one of the MPs in the last government that were unelected"

All 480 MPs were elected ---- and one Government ---- the PPP. The fact that one year later circumstances resulted in some prior members of the PPP defecting .... certainly does not mean that the new Government was elected. Purchased perhaps .... but elected ... no!!

If you choose not to be able to differentiate between the election of individual MPs and a Government --- I again stand in awe of your intellectual flexibility.

[whybother]

<snip>

"You called the last government "unelected", but name any one of the MPs in the last government that were unelected"

All 480 MPs were elected ---- and one Government ---- the PPP. The fact that one year later circumstances resulted in some prior members of the PPP defecting .... certainly does not mean that the new Government was elected. Purchased perhaps .... but elected ... no!!

If you choose not to be able to differentiate between the election of individual MPs and a Government --- I again stand in awe of your intellectual flexibility.

Once again you are showing your ignorance of parliamentary elections.

The people don't elect a government. They elect MPs (those MPs being from particular parties). The majority of MPs then get together and elect a PM who forms government. The people didn't elect a PPP government. It just happened that the PPP could get a majority of MPs to support them to elect a PPP PM, some of them that campaigned that they wouldn't join with a PPP coalition.

When Samak had to stand down because he broke the law, the MPs elected a new PM. It could have been Samak, but they elected Somchai instead. When the PPP were disbanded because they broke the law, a faction decided that they didn't want to join the new Thaksin proxy party. The PTP could have called for a general election instead of going for the election for a new PM, but they misjudged their support. And this time they lost.

The Democrat PM and government was elected and formed in the same way as TRT, PPP and PTP - by the elected MPs. Do you think that was the first time MPs have changed sides? Do you think that was the first time that MPs and parties have been "encouraged" to support one side or the other?

[rubl]

What difference does four days make ? Well, let me tell you

Posted 2011-08-11 13:34:13

PM's Office Minister Surawit Khonsomboon confirmed the reports that Thaksin "instructed" the ministers to vacate their party-list seats.

Posted 2011-08-13 05:47:13

The Pheu Thai Party has an outstanding resolution for Cabinet members to resign their legislative positions as party-list MPs to pave the way for runner-up candidates to fill their seats, Deputy Transport Minister Chatt Kuldiloke said yesterday.

BREAKINGNEWS

Yongyuth: Pheu Thai has no resolution to require ministers to resign as party-list MPs

Published on August 15, 2011

Pheu Thai Party leader Yongyuth Wichaidit said Monday that his party has not yet resolved to have its ministers resign as party-list MPs.

He said it would be up to the Cabinet members to decide whether they would like to voluntarily resign as party-list MPs so that those lower on the list could become MPs.

Yongyuth said he would work as a deputy prime minister and the interior minister for a while before deciding whether he would resign.

The Nation

-- The Nation 2011-08-15

PS first two quotes can be found in this topic

[tig28]

Once again you are showing your ignorance of parliamentary elections.

The people don't elect a government. They elect MPs (those MPs being from particular parties). The majority of MPs then get together and elect a PM who forms government. The people didn't elect a PPP government. It just happened that the PPP could get a majority of MPs to support them to elect a PPP PM, some of them that campaigned that they wouldn't join with a PPP coalition.

Here we go again with the apologists fantasy.

The real purpose of any national election is to elect a government. The actual mechanism of doing so is via the MPs chosen by the electorate based on their party affiliations. (That is why the Democrats never received more than 165 MPs and "the other guys" never less than 233)

Perverting this process of electing a Government by purchasing defectors after the event is deserving of condemnation. The only cute feature of this transaction was that the unelected usurpers were able to fund the purchase with taxpayers funds -- even i have to bow to that!!

It is probably best that we both agree to disagree & allow the thread to resume its intended course. Good day.

[TAWP]

Tig, surely you must have hated how TRT was formed by purchasing smaller parties, including Nrwin and crew...

[tig28]

Tig, surely you must have hated how TRT was formed by purchasing smaller parties, including Nrwin and crew...

Hi TAWP

I think the difference is that at that time he was not purchasing a defection away from a group elected to Government -- so I did not "hate" it in particular ----- but being Thaksin I feel it was likely to be unsavory. Was It ??

[tig28]

I think the formation of the Democrat government on the back of a lot of coalition allies under pressure from the extra-parliamentary forces is well known and not really disputed (even one coalition leader from that time admitted it). Technically it was a legal government even if having no kind of mandate. The people have now judged it and not kindly, so democracy is working well there. They will hopefully at some point in the next 4 years get to judge the Yingluck government as hopefully there wont be any coups etc.

Looking at it from another perspective. The Dems did just about the worst thing they could have done by forming that government under pressure from external forces. In effect they threw away their chance of winning the next vote for two years of government in an alliance they had little control over and with basically no mandate. In retrospect they would have done better to just force an election at the time by refusing the chance of government. Then again they seem in recent times to always be making these mistakes of aligning with the undemocratic. They didnt exactly denounce the coup either. A big change since the heady days of 1993 when they were viewed as an angel party on the side of the people. Now however, people and country have changed and the Dems seem utterly incapable of making the transition themselves but prefer to just wallow in self pity of what should have been and obsessed with Thaksin who they have built up as their own nemesis when they didnt actually have to. Now just think. If they had opposed the coup back in the day, things may have panned out very differently

This is a fair commentary. I think the real problem for the Democrats was that they did not believe that they could win an election at that time.

[Crushdepth]

Try to understand: If your party is dissolved for electoral fraud, you didn't "win" the election, you lost. There are no exceptions. Clear?

You are also entirely wrong in thinking that the party winning the most seats has an inherent "right" to form a government first. It is simply who can control the majority of seats. The party with 'the most' seats has a competitive advantage but can often be overpowered by a coalition of smaller parties.

And yes, before you launch into "The People..." rant, a coalition government is just as valid as a single-party government. There is no requirement for coalition partners to sit around waiting to see if someone else can form a government.

Hi Crushdepth

"There are no exceptions. Clear? ?"

To you it apparently seems so ... but sadly for your "clear" belief ..... recorded history disagrees. The happenings of Dec 2008 -- have absolutely zero bearing on the result of an election held in Dec 2007 -- they are two entirely different matters. Every reference records the winners of the 2007 election --- just as they record how the PPP lost Government one year later -- and how the Democrats achieved power -- and that certainly was not as result of an election.

"You are also entirely wrong in thinking that the party winning the most seats has an inherent "right" to form a government first. It is simply who can control the majority of seats. The party with 'the most' seats has a competitive advantage but can often be overpowered by a coalition of smaller parties".

Please try to improve your reading comprehension skills before leaping into some distorted rant --- what I stated was "It is generally accepted that the party winning the largest number of seats gets the first opportunity to form the Government" --- as has indeed occurred in every Thai election where a coalition was required.

"a coalition government is just as valid as a single-party government."

Of course it is -- only the truly dim-witted would suggest otherwise!!! Just why did you bring up the subject ???

Let's try again: There are no exceptions means....there are no exceptions. You can try to put lipstick on the pig, but it won't help. Dissolution of a party for serial electoral fraud doesn't trigger another general election. And yes, the other MPs are free to horse trade and establish a new majority. It's a normal and legitimate process of Parliament. The parties that were booted out for electoral fraud had betrayed the trust of the people who voted for them.

Where did you get this ridiculous idea that it is "generally accepted" that everyone should sit back and wait for the party with the most seats to try and form a government? There are no 'Queensberry Rules' in Thai politics, as should be obvious even to the truly dim-witted. All parties madly scramble and horse trade to try and establish a majority.

Time you developed a bit more scepticism about the crap you are being spoon-fed by politicians.

[tig28]

Let's try again: There are no exceptions means....there are no exceptions. You can try to put lipstick on the pig, but it won't help. Dissolution of a party for serial electoral fraud doesn't trigger another general election. And yes, the other MPs are free to horse trade and establish a new majority. It's a normal and legitimate process of Parliament. The parties that were booted out for electoral fraud had betrayed the trust of the people who voted for them.

Where did you get this ridiculous idea that it is "generally accepted" that everyone should sit back and wait for the party with the most seats to try and form a government? There are no 'Queensberry Rules' in Thai politics, as should be obvious even to the truly dim-witted. All parties madly scramble and horse trade to try and establish a majority.

Time you developed a bit more scepticism about the crap you are being spoon-fed by politicians.

Sadly for you "these guys" have won every election this century. There is no doubt that the purchase of a group of former government MPs ( to achieve a new and different majority ) perverted the will of the electorate as expressed in the 2007 election. Without doubt these actions were legal -- but without any mandate -- they now find themselves back in the wilderness.

The purchase price to secure these defectors seemed to be just a little excessive --- 5 very lucrative cabinet posts ----- but in an desperate grab for power ... what other choice did the perennial losers have??

If you wish to pretend that this constituted an election of a Government --- I wish you well.