Democrats Claim Seat In Red-Shirt Heartland

[Buchholz]

Between PTP MPs being kicked out of office and others trying to win a different post they will lose there majority.

And then a meeting is called in the Officers Mess, and hey presto - Mark is back!

That doesn't make any sense.

If PTP lost their majority, wouldn't Abhisit be back in charge anyway?

Doesn't the PM have to voted in, or does Abhisit have different rules? and that would be assuming they could form a coalition............

Sure the PM has to be voted in, but the post is apparently saying something unrelated.

JAG seems to be implying that if PTP was legitimately voted out, that there would be a coup, and that Abhisit would then be installed as PM, which sounds confusing as it implies the Army would have a coup if PTP is voted out and runs contrary to the normal Thaksinite rhetoric.

.

[phiphidon]

And then a meeting is called in the Officers Mess, and hey presto - Mark is back!

That doesn't make any sense.

If PTP lost their majority, wouldn't Abhisit be back in charge anyway?

Doesn't the PM have to voted in, or does Abhisit have different rules? and that would be assuming they could form a coalition............

Sure the PM has to be voted in, but the post is apparently saying something unrelated.

JAG seems to be implying that if PTP was legitimately voted out, that there would be a coup, and that Abhisit would then be installed as PM, which sounds confusing as it implies the Army would have a coup if PTP is voted out and runs contrary to the normal Thaksinite rhetoric.

.

Far be it from me to speak for JAG but maybe he is just saying that abhisit is the armys (well the eastern tigers portion of it) preferrred PM, that there would then be a meeting in some barracks somewhere with certain mps who could be coerced into supporting a democrat coalition and "hey presto - mark is back".

That scenario has worked once before and didn't involve a coup at that stage (the coup was earlier to lay the groundwork for the judicial coup which paved the way for the above scenario)

[Buchholz]

That doesn't make any sense.

If PTP lost their majority, wouldn't Abhisit be back in charge anyway?

Doesn't the PM have to voted in, or does Abhisit have different rules? and that would be assuming they could form a coalition............

Sure the PM has to be voted in, but the post is apparently saying something unrelated.

JAG seems to be implying that if PTP was legitimately voted out, that there would be a coup, and that Abhisit would then be installed as PM, which sounds confusing as it implies the Army would have a coup if PTP is voted out and runs contrary to the normal Thaksinite rhetoric.

Far be it from me to speak for JAG but maybe he is just saying that abhisit is the armys (well the eastern tigers portion of it) preferrred PM, that there would then be a meeting in some barracks somewhere with certain mps who could be coerced into supporting a democrat coalition and "hey presto - mark is back".

That scenario has worked once before and didn't involve a coup at that stage (the coup was earlier to lay the groundwork for the judicial coup which paved the way for the above scenario)

It's a completely different scenario than the one you imply is the same as PPP was not voted out.

If one is to believe the Thaksinite rhetoric, if PTP was voted out, there would be absolutely no need for a coup. No need for a meeting of the Army and no necessity to install Abhisit.

All quite bizarre, so perhaps best to let JAG try and explain his confusing post.

.

Edited April 25, 2012 by Buchholz

[RegularReader]

It is quite likely this is a protest vote and the PTP candidate was voted out in protest at the PTP Government's poor management of the floods in the district. This was one of the worst hit areas in Pathum Thani and the Democrat candidate was very active in supporting the locals. He was also savvy enough to spill (pun intended) his good deeds over into the election. His poster was all over the district. The campaign poster photo was taken during the floods: was in an orange life jacket - looking rather silly, but helping the locals protect their assets.

If I recall the PTP billboards were more of the same policies (many still to be implemented) announced during last year's general election.

The Dem guy was much more "folksy" and very current with what he was offering.

Simple and on song "stop the floods".

Doesn't matter how (although in reality it does).

And, that's what people wanted to hear.

So Tida (UDD) is right -PTP was lazy and suffering from hubris.

The Dem guy wasn't.

Will the Dem party pick up on this ?

Probably not - they are not very good at such things.

Maybe PTP will - but with their leader out of the country he is also a few beats away from the common pulse nowdays.

So, once again the poor Thai punter will be left to fend for themselves.

[Chang_paarp]

Between PTP MPs being kicked out of office and others trying to win a different post they will lose there majority.

And then a meeting is called in the Officers Mess, and hey presto - Mark is back!

That doesn't make any sense.

If PTP lost their majority, wouldn't Abhisit be back in charge anyway?

Doesn't the PM have to voted in, or does Abhisit have different rules? and that would be assuming they could form a coalition............

You are confusing a parliamentary democracy and a presidential democracy.

Thailand has a parliamentary democracy, the people elect the parliament and the parliament elects the PM. That is why it is called a parliamentary democracy this concept can be hard to grasp for some folk whose home country does not follow this system.

Hell the US citizens think they are directly electing the president when they are electing the people who will sit in the presidential college to elect the president, the joys of being a union of states.

[phiphidon]

Doesn't the PM have to voted in, or does Abhisit have different rules? and that would be assuming they could form a coalition............

You are confusing a parliamentary democracy and a presidential democracy.

Thailand has a parliamentary democracy, the people elect the parliament and the parliament elects the PM. That is why it is called a parliamentary democracy this concept can be hard to grasp for some folk whose home country does not follow this system.

Hell the US citizens think they are directly electing the president when they are electing the people who will sit in the presidential college to elect the president, the joys of being a union of states.

Thanks but I do understand the democracy concept of both varieties. The point I was making was about buchholz automatically assuming that abhisit would become PM. In theory it could be someone else from one of the coalition parties should there be a coalition.

You may also be aware of the "special" conditions that prevailed at that time that led abhisit to be in a position of being voted in as PM, the chosen one as it may be put - hence my reference to abhisit perhaps having a differerent sort of rules

[Buchholz]

Doesn't the PM have to voted in, or does Abhisit have different rules? and that would be assuming they could form a coalition............

You are confusing a parliamentary democracy and a presidential democracy.

Thailand has a parliamentary democracy, the people elect the parliament and the parliament elects the PM. That is why it is called a parliamentary democracy this concept can be hard to grasp for some folk whose home country does not follow this system.

Hell the US citizens think they are directly electing the president when they are electing the people who will sit in the presidential college to elect the president, the joys of being a union of states.

Thanks but I do understand the democracy concept of both varieties. The point I was making was about buchholz automatically assuming that abhisit would become PM.

which came from JAG.

what a wonderfully amusing cycle

.

[Skywalker69]

Doesn't the PM have to voted in, or does Abhisit have different rules? and that would be assuming they could form a coalition............

You are confusing a parliamentary democracy and a presidential democracy.

Thailand has a parliamentary democracy, the people elect the parliament and the parliament elects the PM. That is why it is called a parliamentary democracy this concept can be hard to grasp for some folk whose home country does not follow this system.

Hell the US citizens think they are directly electing the president when they are electing the people who will sit in the presidential college to elect the president, the joys of being a union of states.

Thanks but I do understand the democracy concept of both varieties. The point I was making was about buchholz automatically assuming that abhisit would become PM.

which came from JAG.

what a wonderfully amusing cycle

.

[phiphidon]

Doesn't the PM have to voted in, or does Abhisit have different rules? and that would be assuming they could form a coalition............

You are confusing a parliamentary democracy and a presidential democracy.

Thailand has a parliamentary democracy, the people elect the parliament and the parliament elects the PM. That is why it is called a parliamentary democracy this concept can be hard to grasp for some folk whose home country does not follow this system.

Hell the US citizens think they are directly electing the president when they are electing the people who will sit in the presidential college to elect the president, the joys of being a union of states.

Thanks but I do understand the democracy concept of both varieties. The point I was making was about buchholz automatically assuming that abhisit would become PM.

which came from JAG.

what a wonderfully amusing cycle

.

"Amusing", well maybe, but certainly different viewpoints. JAG said that a meeting is called in the officers mess (with its connotations of military interference in politics) and then abhisit is back. Your version is if PTP lose majority, (question) wouldn't abhisit be back in charge anyway.

Well, no, he wouldn't, not without going through certain democratic steps like forming a government, or getting a coalition together to form a government and then being voted in which is not a guarantee either.

So your version of events is not the same as JAG said, no amusing cycle exists.

Hope I haven't spoilt the "joke" for you and your easily amused likee,skwalker69

[Buchholz]

You've managed to make the whole confusing scenario of JAG's unexplained post even more comical.

[luckyman]

The Democrats should also reflect on the victory - whether it means they are gaining on the ruling party or whether it's just an anomaly in the face of last year's botched flood crisis.

I actually secretly hope that it is not an anomaly, but that it's just the beginning....!

[Buchholz]

.

Meanwhile, in another Red Shirt Heartland.... another PTP-backed candidate loss, albeit not to a Democrat this time.

.

[Buchholz]

Pheu Thai-backed Candidate Defeated in Udon Thani Poll

The candidate supported by the Pheu Thai Party was defeated by an independent candidate in the Udon Thani mayor election.

According to unofficial tally for the election for the Udon Thani mayor, Itthipol Triwattanasuwan from the Nakhon Makkhaeng Group won more than 29,272 votes, overwhelmingly defeating Sompol Sripattiwong from Nakhon Udon Thani Group, who only got about 19,158 votes.

Itthipol's group swept all 24 municipal council seats.

The Nakhon Makkhaeng Group was supported by Harnchai Theekathananont, former president of the Udon Thani Provincial Administration Organization, or PAO, and also a candidate for new Udon Thani PAO Chief.

The Nakhon Udon Thani Group was backed by Pheu Thai MP for Udon Thani Sarawut Petpanomporn and red-shirt leader Kwanchai Praipana.

In the meantime, unofficial election results for the Nan mayor showed that Surapol Tiensoot from the Muang Nan Na Yoo Group beat Anont Tatrankoon from the Muang Pattana Group.

A total of 10,522 people voted in the election, representing 65 percent of all eligible voters.

-- Tan Network 2012-05-21