Yingluck Gets By With A Little Help

[hyperdimension]

Maybe oobatan (อุปทาน) was one of the keywords that one of her advisors told her to recite. She probably gets a list of keywords from her advisors so that she is prepared for any questioning that she may be faced with, because she is incapable of coming up with thoughtful and intelligent answers all by herself.

[nickjam]

It's ridiculous, like a pack of rabid dogs trying to bring Yingluck down.

The consequences of Yingluck losing power, such as she has, could be disastrous. Get off her case about stupid things like English fluency.

There are far more important things at stake here.

I agree people should get off her case with regards to her English. They should be focussing on the more important things like her continued absence from parliament, her refusals to debate anything, the mishandling of the tablet procurement and its laughable implementation, the constant mixed messages and backtracking during the floods, the rising costs of goods (no they're not, yes they are, no they're not etc.) comical cabinet reshuffles where people with little to no experience are given positions in the highest office in the land, the continued influence of Brother Number One which she denies and finally the fact that she employs Chalerm. These are the things that should be debated, but then you'll never get a proper answer on any of this, just a smile, silence or some cryptic bullshit.

[pastitche]

It's ridiculous, like a pack of rabid dogs trying to bring Yingluck down.

The consequences of Yingluck losing power, such as she has, could be disastrous. Get off her case about stupid things like English fluency.

There are far more important things at stake here.

I agree people should get off her case with regards to her English. They should be focussing on the more important things like her continued absence from parliament, her refusals to debate anything, the mishandling of the tablet procurement and its laughable implementation, the constant mixed messages and backtracking during the floods, the rising costs of goods (no they're not, yes they are, no they're not etc.) comical cabinet reshuffles where people with little to no experience are given positions in the highest office in the land, the continued influence of Brother Number One which she denies and finally the fact that she employs Chalerm. These are the things that should be debated, but then you'll never get a proper answer on any of this, just a smile, silence or some cryptic bullshit.

So you have defined the problems with the present government and PM and you have the support of the majority of posters. However, given that PTP and Yingluck are in power on a legitimate mandate, how do you see a way to resolve your dissatisfaction?

It is rare on here that anything is said that might be realistically constructive in improving Thailand; venting frustration is pointless without an alternative and it appears that no credible alternative to PTP currently exists.

[OzMick]

It's ridiculous, like a pack of rabid dogs trying to bring Yingluck down.

The consequences of Yingluck losing power, such as she has, could be disastrous. Get off her case about stupid things like English fluency.

There are far more important things at stake here.

I agree people should get off her case with regards to her English. They should be focussing on the more important things like her continued absence from parliament, her refusals to debate anything, the mishandling of the tablet procurement and its laughable implementation, the constant mixed messages and backtracking during the floods, the rising costs of goods (no they're not, yes they are, no they're not etc.) comical cabinet reshuffles where people with little to no experience are given positions in the highest office in the land, the continued influence of Brother Number One which she denies and finally the fact that she employs Chalerm. These are the things that should be debated, but then you'll never get a proper answer on any of this, just a smile, silence or some cryptic bullshit.

So you have defined the problems with the present government and PM and you have the support of the majority of posters. However, given that PTP and Yingluck are in power on a legitimate mandate, how do you see a way to resolve your dissatisfaction?

It is rare on here that anything is said that might be realistically constructive in improving Thailand; venting frustration is pointless without an alternative and it appears that no credible alternative to PTP currently exists.

Higher quality education would help, but improvements not likely in the near future.

Edited May 16, 2012 by OzMick

[nickjam]

It's ridiculous, like a pack of rabid dogs trying to bring Yingluck down.

The consequences of Yingluck losing power, such as she has, could be disastrous. Get off her case about stupid things like English fluency.

There are far more important things at stake here.

I agree people should get off her case with regards to her English. They should be focussing on the more important things like her continued absence from parliament, her refusals to debate anything, the mishandling of the tablet procurement and its laughable implementation, the constant mixed messages and backtracking during the floods, the rising costs of goods (no they're not, yes they are, no they're not etc.) comical cabinet reshuffles where people with little to no experience are given positions in the highest office in the land, the continued influence of Brother Number One which she denies and finally the fact that she employs Chalerm. These are the things that should be debated, but then you'll never get a proper answer on any of this, just a smile, silence or some cryptic bullshit.

So you have defined the problems with the present government and PM and you have the support of the majority of posters. However, given that PTP and Yingluck are in power on a legitimate mandate, how do you see a way to resolve your dissatisfaction?

It is rare on here that anything is said that might be realistically constructive in improving Thailand; venting frustration is pointless without an alternative and it appears that no credible alternative to PTP currently exists.

I completely agree with your comment. As a foreigner I have no power to influence any decisions and my opinions would no doubt be dismissed by the majority of Thais. This is therefore, as you say, merely venting and ultimately pointless. I cannot suggest one honest reliable person in this country that could form a meaningful opposition to this current arrogant, greedy power crazed mob. I only hope that educated Thais read these forums, see different points of views and in the long term (very long term) begin to question those in power and expect higher standards from the leaders that they voted in. With quality education and an exposure to opinions that challenge powerful people who seem to have little regard for the people that gave them this power, this may slowly change perceptions, create a bit of anger and purpose that will eventually steer this wonderful country in a more positive direction.

p.s. All forums on all subjects are sort of pointless, but we all like to give our opinions!!!

Edited May 17, 2012 by nickjam

[gand]

It's ridiculous, like a pack of rabid dogs trying to bring Yingluck down.

The consequences of Yingluck losing power, such as she has, could be disastrous. Get off her case about stupid things like English fluency.

There are far more important things at stake here.

I agree people should get off her case with regards to her English. They should be focussing on the more important things like her continued absence from parliament, her refusals to debate anything, the mishandling of the tablet procurement and its laughable implementation, the constant mixed messages and backtracking during the floods, the rising costs of goods (no they're not, yes they are, no they're not etc.) comical cabinet reshuffles where people with little to no experience are given positions in the highest office in the land, the continued influence of Brother Number One which she denies and finally the fact that she employs Chalerm. These are the things that should be debated, but then you'll never get a proper answer on any of this, just a smile, silence or some cryptic bullshit.

So you have defined the problems with the present government and PM and you have the support of the majority of posters. However, given that PTP and Yingluck are in power on a legitimate mandate, how do you see a way to resolve your dissatisfaction?

It is rare on here that anything is said that might be realistically constructive in improving Thailand; venting frustration is pointless without an alternative and it appears that no credible alternative to PTP currently exists.

Mandate seems an odd word when the majority of the Thai people did not vote for Yingluck nor PTP.

[tlansford]

It's ridiculous, like a pack of rabid dogs trying to bring Yingluck down.

The consequences of Yingluck losing power, such as she has, could be disastrous. Get off her case about stupid things like English fluency.

There are far more important things at stake here.

I agree people should get off her case with regards to her English. They should be focussing on the more important things like her continued absence from parliament, her refusals to debate anything, the mishandling of the tablet procurement and its laughable implementation, the constant mixed messages and backtracking during the floods, the rising costs of goods (no they're not, yes they are, no they're not etc.) comical cabinet reshuffles where people with little to no experience are given positions in the highest office in the land, the continued influence of Brother Number One which she denies and finally the fact that she employs Chalerm. These are the things that should be debated, but then you'll never get a proper answer on any of this, just a smile, silence or some cryptic bullshit.

So you have defined the problems with the present government and PM and you have the support of the majority of posters. However, given that PTP and Yingluck are in power on a legitimate mandate, how do you see a way to resolve your dissatisfaction?

It is rare on here that anything is said that might be realistically constructive in improving Thailand; venting frustration is pointless without an alternative and it appears that no credible alternative to PTP currently exists.

Mandate seems an odd word when the majority of the Thai people did not vote for Yingluck nor PTP.

doesn't seem like an odd word when the PTP bested their next closest competitor among 40 parties in the election by 22 points.

[kerryk]

It's ridiculous, like a pack of rabid dogs trying to bring Yingluck down.

The consequences of Yingluck losing power, such as she has, could be disastrous. Get off her case about stupid things like English fluency.

There are far more important things at stake here.

I agree people should get off her case with regards to her English. They should be focussing on the more important things like her continued absence from parliament, her refusals to debate anything, the mishandling of the tablet procurement and its laughable implementation, the constant mixed messages and backtracking during the floods, the rising costs of goods (no they're not, yes they are, no they're not etc.) comical cabinet reshuffles where people with little to no experience are given positions in the highest office in the land, the continued influence of Brother Number One which she denies and finally the fact that she employs Chalerm. These are the things that should be debated, but then you'll never get a proper answer on any of this, just a smile, silence or some cryptic bullshit.

So you have defined the problems with the present government and PM and you have the support of the majority of posters. However, given that PTP and Yingluck are in power on a legitimate mandate, how do you see a way to resolve your dissatisfaction?

It is rare on here that anything is said that might be realistically constructive in improving Thailand; venting frustration is pointless without an alternative and it appears that no credible alternative to PTP currently exists.

Mandate seems an odd word when the majority of the Thai people did not vote for Yingluck nor PTP.

So, what are you saying? Someone got more votes? Maybe there was not a coup that removed her brother? Coups are different than elections you know. If you don't know which the tanks are usually a dead giveaway.

[whybother]

doesn't seem like an odd word when the PTP bested their next closest competitor among 40 parties in the election by 22 points.

Where would you draw the line with "mandate" when you could get a majority of seats with just 20% of the vote and the closest competitor being 18 points away.

[nurofiend]

doesn't seem like an odd word when the PTP bested their next closest competitor among 40 parties in the election by 22 points.

Where would you draw the line with "mandate" when you could get a majority of seats with just 20% of the vote and the closest competitor being 18 points away.

well what do you think? where would you draw it?

48% not good enough for you?

[animatic]

The most constructive things said here about changes that could be made get shouted down the loudest.

Maybe because those are the same things that make the current regime come across on the worst light.

[whybother]

doesn't seem like an odd word when the PTP bested their next closest competitor among 40 parties in the election by 22 points.

Where would you draw the line with "mandate" when you could get a majority of seats with just 20% of the vote and the closest competitor being 18 points away.

well what do you think? where would you draw it?

48% not good enough for you?

You like answering questions with questions don't you. Do you have an opinion on this? Where would you draw the line?

In my experience, "mandate" from a political sense usually refers to at least more than 50% of the vote.

[gand]

I agree people should get off her case with regards to her English. They should be focussing on the more important things like her continued absence from parliament, her refusals to debate anything, the mishandling of the tablet procurement and its laughable implementation, the constant mixed messages and backtracking during the floods, the rising costs of goods (no they're not, yes they are, no they're not etc.) comical cabinet reshuffles where people with little to no experience are given positions in the highest office in the land, the continued influence of Brother Number One which she denies and finally the fact that she employs Chalerm. These are the things that should be debated, but then you'll never get a proper answer on any of this, just a smile, silence or some cryptic bullshit.

So you have defined the problems with the present government and PM and you have the support of the majority of posters. However, given that PTP and Yingluck are in power on a legitimate mandate, how do you see a way to resolve your dissatisfaction?

It is rare on here that anything is said that might be realistically constructive in improving Thailand; venting frustration is pointless without an alternative and it appears that no credible alternative to PTP currently exists.

Mandate seems an odd word when the majority of the Thai people did not vote for Yingluck nor PTP.

So, what are you saying? Someone got more votes? Maybe there was not a coup that removed her brother? Coups are different than elections you know. If you don't know which the tanks are usually a dead giveaway.

They are celebrating the failed coup of 2010 in a couple of days.

[nurofiend]

doesn't seem like an odd word when the PTP bested their next closest competitor among 40 parties in the election by 22 points.

Where would you draw the line with "mandate" when you could get a majority of seats with just 20% of the vote and the closest competitor being 18 points away.

well what do you think? where would you draw it?

48% not good enough for you?

You like answering questions with questions don't you. Do you have an opinion on this? Where would you draw the line?

In my experience, "mandate" from a political sense usually refers to at least more than 50% of the vote.

"You like answering questions with questions don't you"

do I?

"In my experience, "mandate" from a political sense usually refers to at least more than 50% of the vote."

you mean 50% of the vote going by population? where has this been usually experienced by you?

[tlansford]

doesn't seem like an odd word when the PTP bested their next closest competitor among 40 parties in the election by 22 points.

Where would you draw the line with "mandate" when you could get a majority of seats with just 20% of the vote and the closest competitor being 18 points away.

First, where to draw the line in a mandate discussion is beside the point as it is just not relevant to the facts of the situation.

Secondly, the old "mandate debate" is useless here because those who don't want to admit to it will weasel away until they feel good about denying it - and it is not my job to change their mind.

Thirdly, the election was declared a landslide by every analyst & paper I saw a report from with the natural exception of TANN and The Nation. Then the PTP - with 53 % of the seats already - formed a government with coalition partners. Those are the numbers and the events.

Some will try to deny this is a mandate, but as I responded to the poster, it does not seem odd to use the word "mandate" when associated with the current government.

[OzMick]

doesn't seem like an odd word when the PTP bested their next closest competitor among 40 parties in the election by 22 points.

Where would you draw the line with "mandate" when you could get a majority of seats with just 20% of the vote and the closest competitor being 18 points away.

First, where to draw the line in a mandate discussion is beside the point as it is just not relevant to the facts of the situation.

Secondly, the old "mandate debate" is useless here because those who don't want to admit to it will weasel away until they feel good about denying it - and it is not my job to change their mind.

Thirdly, the election was declared a landslide by every analyst & paper I saw a report from with the natural exception of TANN and The Nation. Then the PTP - with 53 % of the seats already - formed a government with coalition partners. Those are the numbers and the events.

Some will try to deny this is a mandate, but as I responded to the poster, it does not seem odd to use the word "mandate" when associated with the current government.

And given the number of members either facing serious charges, or using their position to avoid them, is using the term "criminal conspiracy".

[kerryk]

doesn't seem like an odd word when the PTP bested their next closest competitor among 40 parties in the election by 22 points.

Where would you draw the line with "mandate" when you could get a majority of seats with just 20% of the vote and the closest competitor being 18 points away.

First, where to draw the line in a mandate discussion is beside the point as it is just not relevant to the facts of the situation.

Secondly, the old "mandate debate" is useless here because those who don't want to admit to it will weasel away until they feel good about denying it - and it is not my job to change their mind.

Thirdly, the election was declared a landslide by every analyst & paper I saw a report from with the natural exception of TANN and The Nation. Then the PTP - with 53 % of the seats already - formed a government with coalition partners. Those are the numbers and the events.

Some will try to deny this is a mandate, but as I responded to the poster, it does not seem odd to use the word "mandate" when associated with the current government.

And given the number of members either facing serious charges, or using their position to avoid them, is using the term "criminal conspiracy".

Tiansford said, "The election was declared a landslide by every analyst & paper I saw a report from with the natural exception of TANN and The Nation. Then the PTP - with 53 % of the seats already - formed a government with coalition partners. Those are the numbers and the events."

OZ you lost the argument. Get over it. Name calling does not help.

[OzMick]

And given the number of members either facing serious charges, or using their position to avoid them, is using the term "criminal conspiracy".

Tiansford said, "The election was declared a landslide by every analyst & paper I saw a report from with the natural exception of TANN and The Nation. Then the PTP - with 53 % of the seats already - formed a government with coalition partners. Those are the numbers and the events."

OZ you lost the argument. Get over it. Name calling does not help.

Firstly I wasn't involved in an argument, with you or anybody else

Secondly i was making an accurate statement about a government which AKAIK containsan unprecedented number of members facing and/or avoiding criminal charges, up to and including a PM who perjures herself and avoids the charge because a police officer changes the definition of perjury.

Thirdly no names were mentioned or alluded to

Fourthly as i have indicated before I have interest in wasting my time arguing with someone who slips off at a tangent whenever something inconvenient is presented, and then declares a line of discussion off topic despite that subject being self-raised.

[jayboy]

And given the number of members either facing serious charges, or using their position to avoid them, is using the term "criminal conspiracy".

Tiansford said, "The election was declared a landslide by every analyst & paper I saw a report from with the natural exception of TANN and The Nation. Then the PTP - with 53 % of the seats already - formed a government with coalition partners. Those are the numbers and the events."

OZ you lost the argument. Get over it. Name calling does not help.

Firstly I wasn't involved in an argument, with you or anybody else

Secondly i was making an accurate statement about a government which AKAIK containsan unprecedented number of members facing and/or avoiding criminal charges, up to and including a PM who perjures herself and avoids the charge because a police officer changes the definition of perjury.

Thirdly no names were mentioned or alluded to

Fourthly as i have indicated before I have interest in wasting my time arguing with someone who slips off at a tangent whenever something inconvenient is presented, and then declares a line of discussion off topic despite that subject being self-raised.

Do you have any idea how ridiculous you sound? This government had a strong mandate from the Thai people.Get over it , as Khun Abhisit and the opposition have, and look to the future.

If you have criticisms (not mindless abuse) of the present government by all means air them - that's what the forum is for.But to quibble about whether this government has a mandate simply prevents anyone from taking you seriously.

Edited May 18, 2012 by jayboy

[whybother]

"In my experience, "mandate" from a political sense usually refers to at least more than 50% of the vote."

you mean 50% of the vote going by population? where has this been usually experienced by you?

Reading problem?

[whybother]

This government had a strong mandate from the Thai people.

Now it's a "strong mandate from the Thai people"?

Where do you draw the line for a "strong mandate"? Is simply scraping into government a "strong mandate"? Is a minority government a "strong mandate"? Is getting into government with 20% of the vote a "strong mandate".

I know you will say "but they're in government", but I'm just wondering, where would you draw the line?

Also, does being in government give them a "strong mandate" to do things that they didn't campaign on?

[kerryk]

And given the number of members either facing serious charges, or using their position to avoid them, is using the term "criminal conspiracy".

Tiansford said, "The election was declared a landslide by every analyst & paper I saw a report from with the natural exception of TANN and The Nation. Then the PTP - with 53 % of the seats already - formed a government with coalition partners. Those are the numbers and the events."

OZ you lost the argument. Get over it. Name calling does not help.

Firstly I wasn't involved in an argument, with you or anybody else

Secondly i was making an accurate statement about a government which AKAIK containsan unprecedented number of members facing and/or avoiding criminal charges, up to and including a PM who perjures herself and avoids the charge because a police officer changes the definition of perjury.

Thirdly no names were mentioned or alluded to

Fourthly as i have indicated before I have interest in wasting my time arguing with someone who slips off at a tangent whenever something inconvenient is presented, and then declares a line of discussion off topic despite that subject being self-raised.

I always thought that the OZ reference was to Australia not OZ like in the Wizard of OZ. So you think there is even a remote chance that the government will arrest itself and the PM? You said and I quote, "Fourthly as i have indicated before I have interest in wasting my time arguing with someone who slips off at a tangent whenever something inconvenient is presented" I guess that's me. I am glad to know you have interest in wasting your time with me. Warm fuzzy feeling. Since I don't see this government arresting itself. And I don't think we live in OZ. All you are doing is name calling. How long have you been carping about the same old stuff?

[jayboy]

This government had a strong mandate from the Thai people.

Now it's a "strong mandate from the Thai people"?

Where do you draw the line for a "strong mandate"? Is simply scraping into government a "strong mandate"? Is a minority government a "strong mandate"? Is getting into government with 20% of the vote a "strong mandate".

I know you will say "but they're in government", but I'm just wondering, where would you draw the line?

Also, does being in government give them a "strong mandate" to do things that they didn't campaign on?

I agree the use of the term "strong" can be debated.I am quite happy with the statement that the government has a mandate from the Thai people - uncontroversial and accepted by all sane people including the Democrats, other political opposition, the army,the judicial system, the Court, ASEAN and regional countries, all the major powers, international electoral observers, NGOs, civil society, the United Nations, the Thai people etc etc.

A few crazed foreign reactionaries on this forum appear to think otherwise.Fair enough - let the rant away but nobody cares or listens - except their fellow "inmates"

[whybother]

I agree the use of the term "strong" can be debated.I am quite happy with the statement that the government has a mandate from the Thai people - uncontroversial and accepted by all sane people including the Democrats, other political opposition, the army,the judicial system, the Court, ASEAN and regional countries, all the major powers, international electoral observers, NGOs, civil society, the United Nations, the Thai people etc etc.

A few crazed foreign reactionaries on this forum appear to think otherwise.Fair enough - let the rant away but nobody cares or listens - except their fellow "inmates"

But where do you draw the line? All of you are saying it's a mandate. But none of you can say where you would draw the line. Is 20% of the vote a mandate? It's not that hard a question.

[kerryk]

I agree the use of the term "strong" can be debated.I am quite happy with the statement that the government has a mandate from the Thai people - uncontroversial and accepted by all sane people including the Democrats, other political opposition, the army,the judicial system, the Court, ASEAN and regional countries, all the major powers, international electoral observers, NGOs, civil society, the United Nations, the Thai people etc etc.

A few crazed foreign reactionaries on this forum appear to think otherwise.Fair enough - let the rant away but nobody cares or listens - except their fellow "inmates"

But where do you draw the line? All of you are saying it's a mandate. But none of you can say where you would draw the line. Is 20% of the vote a mandate? It's not that hard a question.

A judicial command, order, or precept, written or oral, from a court; a direction that a court has the authority to give and an individual is bound to obey.

Any mandatory order or requirement under statute, regulation, or by a public agency. 2) order of an appeals court to a lower court (usually the original trial court in the case) to comply with an appeals court's ruling, such as holding a new trial, dismissing the case, or releasing a prisoner whose conviction has been over-turned. 3) same as the writ of mandamus, which orders a public official or public body to comply with the law.

I don't see it as a number. It is a legal term and the legal party in power has a mandate.

[jayboy]

I agree the use of the term "strong" can be debated.I am quite happy with the statement that the government has a mandate from the Thai people - uncontroversial and accepted by all sane people including the Democrats, other political opposition, the army,the judicial system, the Court, ASEAN and regional countries, all the major powers, international electoral observers, NGOs, civil society, the United Nations, the Thai people etc etc.

A few crazed foreign reactionaries on this forum appear to think otherwise.Fair enough - let the rant away but nobody cares or listens - except their fellow "inmates"

But where do you draw the line? All of you are saying it's a mandate. But none of you can say where you would draw the line. Is 20% of the vote a mandate? It's not that hard a question.

Democracy is a messy system.Many coalition governments, for example in western Europe, don't have an absolute majority.Actually in the technical sense many US and UK governments haven't had an "absolute majority".The key question is can a government command a majority in parliament.Your question about where to draw the line doesn't really make much sense in this context, and in the case of the current Thai government is irrelevant.

I agree in a practical sense a government which hasn't faced the electorate needs to freshen its mandate.Otherwise in a political or non-constititional way a mandate tends to ebb away - as in the case of Abhisit or Gordon Brown.However in the case of the Yingluck government this isn't a factor.

If you don't understand any of this and still feel that for various reasons, this government doesn't have a mandate I can really add no more.There are a few tin foil hatted chums on the forum you can debate your somewhat bizarre reservations until kingdom come.

[whybother]

A judicial command, order, or precept, written or oral, from a court; a direction that a court has the authority to give and an individual is bound to obey.

Any mandatory order or requirement under statute, regulation, or by a public agency. 2) order of an appeals court to a lower court (usually the original trial court in the case) to comply with an appeals court's ruling, such as holding a new trial, dismissing the case, or releasing a prisoner whose conviction has been over-turned. 3) same as the writ of mandamus, which orders a public official or public body to comply with the law.

I don't see it as a number. It is a legal term and the legal party in power has a mandate.

Based on that definition, the party doesn't have a mandate. But I don't think that's the definition we're referring to.

[whybother]

Democracy is a messy system.Many coalition governments, for example in western Europe, don't have an absolute majority.Actually in the technical sense many US and UK governments haven't had an "absolute majority".The key question is can a government command a majority in parliament.Your question about where to draw the line doesn't really make much sense in this context, and in the case of the current Thai government is irrelevant.

I agree in a practical sense a government which hasn't faced the electorate needs to freshen its mandate.Otherwise in a political or non-constititional way a mandate tends to ebb away - as in the case of Abhisit or Gordon Brown.However in the case of the Yingluck government this isn't a factor.

If you don't understand any of this and still feel that for various reasons, this government doesn't have a mandate I can really add no more.There are a few tin foil hatted chums on the forum you can debate your somewhat bizarre reservations until kingdom come.

You could have just said "I don't want to draw a line".

[jayboy]

Democracy is a messy system.Many coalition governments, for example in western Europe, don't have an absolute majority.Actually in the technical sense many US and UK governments haven't had an "absolute majority".The key question is can a government command a majority in parliament.Your question about where to draw the line doesn't really make much sense in this context, and in the case of the current Thai government is irrelevant.

I agree in a practical sense a government which hasn't faced the electorate needs to freshen its mandate.Otherwise in a political or non-constititional way a mandate tends to ebb away - as in the case of Abhisit or Gordon Brown.However in the case of the Yingluck government this isn't a factor.

If you don't understand any of this and still feel that for various reasons, this government doesn't have a mandate I can really add no more.There are a few tin foil hatted chums on the forum you can debate your somewhat bizarre reservations until kingdom come.

You could have just said "I don't want to draw a line".

I could have done but it wouldn't have made any sense.You seem not to have understood (or pretended not to understand) there is no line to draw as was rather patiently explained in my last post.Anyway to humour you the practical impact of a political party which had polled low numbers - say 10% - heading a government would be that its tenure would be fragile.When this happens it usually means a new election has to be called in a reasonable space of time.But the fundamental point is that all democracies have clear rules for elections/formation of governments.A government which emerges, after following these rules )ie not a junta or other illegal entity, is described as having a mandate.

[whybother]

I could have done but it wouldn't have made any sense.You seem not to have understood (or pretended not to understand) there is no line to draw as was rather patiently explained in my last post.Anyway to humour you the practical impact of a political party which had polled low numbers - say 10% - heading a government would be that its tenure would be fragile.When this happens it usually means a new election has to be called in a reasonable space of time.But the fundamental point is that all democracies have clear rules for elections/formation of governments.A government which emerges, after following these rules )ie not a junta or other illegal entity, is described as having a mandate.

But, in Thailand, a party could get a strong majority of seats with as little as 20% of the vote. Would you consider that a "mandate"?