House Dissolution An Option: Pheu Thai Secretary-General

[Baerboxer]

Ok thanks - I just did, and its clear there were so many problems with that 2007 referendum that it couldn't be considered free, fair or democratic any way.

Unfortunately I was not able to find any explaination from the Constitution Court of just how the illegal removal of the 1997 peoples constitution was made legal.

The illegal removal of the 1997 constitution was made legal in the referendum on the 2007 constitution. Whatever the problems with the 2007 referendum, the result stands. Changes do need to be made to the constitution to make it stronger. Interestingly, PTP (and all of Thaksin's previous proxy parties) want to remove the checks and balances that are in there. They even want to remove some that were in the 1997 "people's constitution".

Of course they do. PTP aim to whitewash Thaksin's convictions and outstanding charges so he can return unhindered and resume as head of the clan, whilst also removing the checks and balances which stop them doing just as they want.

[ogb]

Ok thanks - I just did, and its clear there were so many problems with that 2007 referendum that it couldn't be considered free, fair or democratic any way.

Unfortunately I was not able to find any explaination from the Constitution Court of just how the illegal removal of the 1997 peoples constitution was made legal.

The illegal removal of the 1997 constitution was made legal in the referendum on the 2007 constitution. Whatever the problems with the 2007 referendum, the result stands. Changes do need to be made to the constitution to make it stronger. Interestingly, PTP (and all of Thaksin's previous proxy parties) want to remove the checks and balances that are in there. They even want to remove some that were in the 1997 "people's constitution".

You may want to hang your hat on a constitution that came from illegal coup and an unfair referendum, but I can understand why the Thai people might not want to go along with you on that.

To end this cycle once and for all, there are probably only 2 options: Coup or House dissolution.

The only coup the majority of Thai people could accept would be one that returns the 1997 constitution, but accepting coups is a slippery slope, and how then could the military ever be contained to their barracks and be under control of the civilian government?

Therefore house dissolution might be the best answer - let each party campaign freely (including those that favour militay coups, appointed senators etc) and let the Thai people decide once and for all which direction they want the country to take.

Edited May 13, 2013 by ogb

[khunken]

Ok thanks - I just did, and its clear there were so many problems with that 2007 referendum that it couldn't be considered free, fair or democratic any way.

Unfortunately I was not able to find any explaination from the Constitution Court of just how the illegal removal of the 1997 peoples constitution was made legal.

Rubbish - the vote by the people for the 2007 constitution was the fairest in Than history - no vote buying, no intimidation & no promises of goodies 'if we win'.

The CC is not obliged to explain anything to TV members. Try using your brain instead.

By the way OGB, you remind me of someone who used to post on TV. What was your previous moniker?

[whybother]

Ok thanks - I just did, and its clear there were so many problems with that 2007 referendum that it couldn't be considered free, fair or democratic any way.

Unfortunately I was not able to find any explaination from the Constitution Court of just how the illegal removal of the 1997 peoples constitution was made legal.

The illegal removal of the 1997 constitution was made legal in the referendum on the 2007 constitution. Whatever the problems with the 2007 referendum, the result stands. Changes do need to be made to the constitution to make it stronger. Interestingly, PTP (and all of Thaksin's previous proxy parties) want to remove the checks and balances that are in there. They even want to remove some that were in the 1997 "people's constitution".

You may want to hang your hat on a constitution that came from illegal coup and an unfair referendum, but I can understand why the Thai people might not want to go along with you on that.

To end this cycle once and for all, there are probably only 2 options: Coup or House dissolution.

The only coup the majority of Thai people could accept would be one that returns the 1997 constitution, but accepting coups is a slippery slope, and how then could the military ever be contained to their barracks and be under control of the civilian government?

Therefore house dissolution might be the best answer - let each party campaign freely (including those that favour militay coups, appointed senators etc) and let the Thai people decide once and for all which direction they want the country to take.

If "the Thai people" wouldn't go along with me, why are PTP so worried about having a referendum on the issue.

The problem with using an election as a "referendum" is that people vote for a party based any many issues. On such a divisive issue such as the amnesty of Thaksin, there should be a vote on the single issue.

[Just1Voice]

Well, lets see. I'm not a Red Shirt, or particularly in favor of PTP, but let's look at a few "legal facts".

1) The "People's Constitution", which was lauded by other nations, DID contain a clause the made a military coup illegal.

2) The Generals ignored that and wrote a new one. Basically the same as the previous ones, but with a few "minor changes"

a) They made sure it completely absolved them of any "crime" or "wrong doing" for the coup.

True, they held a "referendum" on it, but with the stipulation that it was illegal to say anything negative about the new one, and that if the people didn't vote for it, they would stay under martial law "indefinitely". Wow, what a choice!

c) They established "independent agencies" with one agenda - Go after Thaksin in every way possible.

d) They removed any court judge who disagreed with them, replacing them with judges of their own choosing.

e) The added sections that stated THEIR constitution could not be completely rewritten or thrown out, but it might be okay to change a few things.

Sgt. Joe Friday:
All we know are the facts, ma'am.

[whybother]

Well, lets see. I'm not a Red Shirt, or particularly in favor of PTP, but let's look at a few "legal facts".

1) The "People's Constitution", which was lauded by other nations, DID contain a clause the made a military coup illegal.

2) The Generals ignored that and wrote a new one. Basically the same as the previous ones, but with a few "minor changes"

a) They made sure it completely absolved them of any "crime" or "wrong doing" for the coup.

True, they held a "referendum" on it, but with the stipulation that it was illegal to say anything negative about the new one, and that if the people didn't vote for it, they would stay under martial law "indefinitely". Wow, what a choice!

c) They established "independent agencies" with one agenda - Go after Thaksin in every way possible.

d) They removed any court judge who disagreed with them, replacing them with judges of their own choosing.

e) The added sections that stated THEIR constitution could not be completely rewritten or thrown out, but it might be okay to change a few things.

Sgt. Joe Friday:

All we know are the facts, ma'am.

Which clause in the 1997 constitution has anything about making a coup illegal?

YES, a military coup IS illegal. I'm just wondering which clause in the 1997 constitution states that.

Edited May 13, 2013 by whybother

[rubl]

I'm not a red-shirt or particularly in favour of the Pheu Thai, but I do remember that one of the Pheu Thai previous incarnations (TRT that is) called a House Dissolution less than a year after a real landslide victory. That time our dear ex-PM and current criminal fugitive thought a new election would silence critics about his Amply Rich scheme.

Any comment on the way the 2007 Constitution may have reached it's approved form with it being almost the same, but better than the 1997 version seems to try to distract. Only the amnesty for the generals is really contentious. All remarks on 'replaced judges' seems alleged with even the current Constitutional Court appointed under the late k. Samak.

So, why would a House dissolution now be an option?

[Insight]

Well, lets see. I'm not a Red Shirt, or particularly in favor of PTP, ....

..... NEXT

[ogb]

Ok thanks - I just did, and its clear there were so many problems with that 2007 referendum that it couldn't be considered free, fair or democratic any way.

Unfortunately I was not able to find any explaination from the Constitution Court of just how the illegal removal of the 1997 peoples constitution was made legal.

The illegal removal of the 1997 constitution was made legal in the referendum on the 2007 constitution. Whatever the problems with the 2007 referendum, the result stands. Changes do need to be made to the constitution to make it stronger. Interestingly, PTP (and all of Thaksin's previous proxy parties) want to remove the checks and balances that are in there. They even want to remove some that were in the 1997 "people's constitution".

You may want to hang your hat on a constitution that came from illegal coup and an unfair referendum, but I can understand why the Thai people might not want to go along with you on that.

To end this cycle once and for all, there are probably only 2 options: Coup or House dissolution.

The only coup the majority of Thai people could accept would be one that returns the 1997 constitution, but accepting coups is a slippery slope, and how then could the military ever be contained to their barracks and be under control of the civilian government?

Therefore house dissolution might be the best answer - let each party campaign freely (including those that favour militay coups, appointed senators etc) and let the Thai people decide once and for all which direction they want the country to take.

If "the Thai people" wouldn't go along with me, why are PTP so worried about having a referendum on the issue.

The problem with using an election as a "referendum" is that people vote for a party based any many issues. On such a divisive issue such as the amnesty of Thaksin, there should be a vote on the single issue.

Its because the coup process (2007 constitution & coup govt) changed the referendum quorum rules.

Previously it was only necessary to win the referendum, but with the new quorum rules there is no incentive for those opposed to the resolution to vote NO, as their cause is better served if they abstain in an effort to not get the quorum (Abhisit has effectively already flagged that strategy).

Quite a nifty little trap the coupsters installed, probably well aware that they couldn't win straight elections or straight referendums.

I'm sure PTP would have a referendum any day of the week if the quorum rules were the same as the 2007 referendum (and I'm also sure they'd even allow you to campaign for a NO vote, unlike the military did in 2007)

[khunken]

Well, lets see. I'm not a Red Shirt, or particularly in favor of PTP, but let's look at a few "legal facts".

1) The "People's Constitution", which was lauded by other nations, DID contain a clause the made a military coup illegal.

2) The Generals ignored that and wrote a new one. Basically the same as the previous ones, but with a few "minor changes"

a) They made sure it completely absolved them of any "crime" or "wrong doing" for the coup.

True, they held a "referendum" on it, but with the stipulation that it was illegal to say anything negative about the new one, and that if the people didn't vote for it, they would stay under martial law "indefinitely". Wow, what a choice!

c) They established "independent agencies" with one agenda - Go after Thaksin in every way possible.

d) They removed any court judge who disagreed with them, replacing them with judges of their own choosing.

e) The added sections that stated THEIR constitution could not be completely rewritten or thrown out, but it might be okay to change a few things.

Sgt. Joe Friday:

All we know are the facts, ma'am.

The above are not 'facts' - more like a (failed) attempt to rewrite history which 'I'm not a red shirt, but.....' people then proceed to contradict themselves.

The referendum on the 2007 constitution was absolutely fair - no canvassing either for or against which cut out all the vote buying & intimidation that the PTP/red shirts are infamous for. They did NOT say that martial law would be imposed if it was not accepted. They said they would establish a previous constitution.

They neither removed court judges nor appointed any. Nor did they add anything to the constitution about how it might be amended or rewritten in the future.

Your post looks like a troll.

[philw]

Ok thanks - I just did, and its clear there were so many problems with that 2007 referendum that it couldn't be considered free, fair or democratic any way.

Unfortunately I was not able to find any explaination from the Constitution Court of just how the illegal removal of the 1997 peoples constitution was made legal.

Rubbish - the vote by the people for the 2007 constitution was the fairest in Than history - no vote buying, no intimidation & no promises of goodies 'if we win'.

The CC is not obliged to explain anything to TV members. Try using your brain instead.

By the way OGB, you remind me of someone who used to post on TV. What was your previous moniker?

Love it..........

The referendum was straightforwards coercion from the military, who quite bluntly stated if this constitution is not accepted, we don't stand down and no elections.

Were you here at the time ???

[rubl]

So, 'house dissolution' anyone?

[khunken]

The problem with using an election as a "referendum" is that people vote for a party based any many issues. On such a divisive issue such as the amnesty of Thaksin, there should be a vote on the single issue.

Its because the coup process (2007 constitution & coup govt) changed the referendum quorum rules.

Previously it was only necessary to win the referendum, but with the new quorum rules there is no incentive for those opposed to the resolution to vote NO, as their cause is better served if they abstain in an effort to not get the quorum (Abhisit has effectively already flagged that strategy).

Quite a nifty little trap the coupsters installed, probably well aware that they couldn't win straight elections or straight referendums.

I'm sure PTP would have a referendum any day of the week if the quorum rules were the same as the 2007 referendum (and I'm also sure they'd even allow you to campaign for a NO vote, unlike the military did in 2007)

A good move but it's a pity they didn't add a two-thirds majority to any changes to bring it closer into line with international standards which virtually make a consensus necessary to amend a constitution.

As for campaigning for a no vote - only if the red shirts allow any opposition campaigning in 'their' areas. Unlikely.

Is that Ferangled or PPD there?

[khunken]

Ok thanks - I just did, and its clear there were so many problems with that 2007 referendum that it couldn't be considered free, fair or democratic any way.

Unfortunately I was not able to find any explaination from the Constitution Court of just how the illegal removal of the 1997 peoples constitution was made legal.

Rubbish - the vote by the people for the 2007 constitution was the fairest in Than history - no vote buying, no intimidation & no promises of goodies 'if we win'.

The CC is not obliged to explain anything to TV members. Try using your brain instead.

By the way OGB, you remind me of someone who used to post on TV. What was your previous moniker?

Love it..........

The referendum was straightforwards coercion from the military, who quite bluntly stated if this constitution is not accepted, we don't stand down and no elections.

Were you here at the time ???

Yes I was here and they DIDN'T say they wouldn't stand down.

As I've already posted above, they said they would establish a previous constitution if the 2007 one was rejected.

It seems that PTP/red shirt supporters are hoping that constant repetition of this lie will turn it into a truth.

Edited May 13, 2013 by khunken

[ogb]

Well, lets see. I'm not a Red Shirt, or particularly in favor of PTP, but let's look at a few "legal facts".

1) The "People's Constitution", which was lauded by other nations, DID contain a clause the made a military coup illegal.

2) The Generals ignored that and wrote a new one. Basically the same as the previous ones, but with a few "minor changes"

a) They made sure it completely absolved them of any "crime" or "wrong doing" for the coup.

True, they held a "referendum" on it, but with the stipulation that it was illegal to say anything negative about the new one, and that if the people didn't vote for it, they would stay under martial law "indefinitely". Wow, what a choice!

c) They established "independent agencies" with one agenda - Go after Thaksin in every way possible.

d) They removed any court judge who disagreed with them, replacing them with judges of their own choosing.

e) The added sections that stated THEIR constitution could not be completely rewritten or thrown out, but it might be okay to change a few things.

Sgt. Joe Friday:

All we know are the facts, ma'am.

The above are not 'facts' - more like a (failed) attempt to rewrite history which 'I'm not a red shirt, but.....' people then proceed to contradict themselves.

The referendum on the 2007 constitution was absolutely fair - no canvassing either for or against which cut out all the vote buying & intimidation that the PTP/red shirts are infamous for. They did NOT say that martial law would be imposed if it was not accepted. They said they would establish a previous constitution.

They neither removed court judges nor appointed any. Nor did they add anything to the constitution about how it might be amended or rewritten in the future.

Your post looks like a troll.

Luckily Thai Visa rules forbid abuse of fellow members, as you left yourself wide open with that "absolutely fair....." statement.

[whybother]

ogb, on 13 May 2013 - 15:09, said:

Its because the coup process (2007 constitution & coup govt) changed the referendum quorum rules.

Previously it was only necessary to win the referendum, but with the new quorum rules there is no incentive for those opposed to the resolution to vote NO, as their cause is better served if they abstain in an effort to not get the quorum (Abhisit has effectively already flagged that strategy).

Quite a nifty little trap the coupsters installed, probably well aware that they couldn't win straight elections or straight referendums.

I'm sure PTP would have a referendum any day of the week if the quorum rules were the same as the 2007 referendum (and I'm also sure they'd even allow you to campaign for a NO vote, unlike the military did in 2007)

What? Do you mean you have to get more than 50% of the voting public to support it for it to be passed? I wonder how they got the 2007 referendum passed with such draconian rules.

Are you saying that PTP don't have the support of 50% of the voting public? Are you also saying that referendums should be passed without having the support of the majority of the voters?

The current rules (iirc) are 50% of the registered voters must vote, and 50% of those must vote yes for the referendum to be successful. So the "Yes" votes need a minimum of 25%(+1) of the registered voters to vote for it, and if everyone votes, they need 50%(+1) of the votes.

Edited May 13, 2013 by whybother

[drdoom6996]

"He denied that former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra made a Skype video call to a meeting of Pheu Thai MPs to ask them to get ready for a House dissolution.

Thaksin simply asked Pheu Thai MPs to regularly visit their constituents during the break of Parliament, he said."

But he did make the call, and feels he has the right to "ask" PTP MPs to do his bidding. Does he also "ask" them to vote for the PTP policy he "suggests" to Cabinet?

Lest we forget..... Thaksin thinks, Pheu Thai don't.

But according to the election statements, "Taksin speaks and PTP does". It looks to me that neither can think past the money. ie, No thought process.

[waza]

Ok thanks - I just did, and its clear there were so many problems with that 2007 referendum that it couldn't be considered free, fair or democratic any way.

Unfortunately I was not able to find any explaination from the Constitution Court of just how the illegal removal of the 1997 peoples constitution was made legal.

Rubbish - the vote by the people for the 2007 constitution was the fairest in Than history - no vote buying, no intimidation & no promises of goodies 'if we win'.

The CC is not obliged to explain anything to TV members. Try using your brain instead.

By the way OGB, you remind me of someone who used to post on TV. What was your previous moniker?

Love it..........

The referendum was straightforwards coercion from the military, who quite bluntly stated if this constitution is not accepted, we don't stand down and no elections.

Were you here at the time ???

More untruths from the. "I am not a Thaksin supporter, butt" squad

[ratcatcher]

This country needs to go back to a Monarchy

We're in good shape in that department thank you.

[ogb]

ogb, on 13 May 2013 - 15:09, said:

Its because the coup process (2007 constitution & coup govt) changed the referendum quorum rules.

Previously it was only necessary to win the referendum, but with the new quorum rules there is no incentive for those opposed to the resolution to vote NO, as their cause is better served if they abstain in an effort to not get the quorum (Abhisit has effectively already flagged that strategy).

Quite a nifty little trap the coupsters installed, probably well aware that they couldn't win straight elections or straight referendums.

I'm sure PTP would have a referendum any day of the week if the quorum rules were the same as the 2007 referendum (and I'm also sure they'd even allow you to campaign for a NO vote, unlike the military did in 2007)

What? Do you mean you have to get more than 50% of the voting public to support it for it to be passed? I wonder how they got the 2007 referendum passed with such draconian rules.

Are you saying that PTP don't have the support of 50% of the voting public? Are you also saying that referendums should be passed without having the support of the majority of the voters?

The current rules (iirc) are 50% of the registered voters must vote, and 50% of those must vote yes for the referendum to be successful. So the "Yes" votes need a minimum of 25%(+1) of the registered voters to vote for it, and if everyone votes, they need 50%(+1) of the votes.

Exactly, and Abhisit has already flagged that he wants those opposed to not vote rather than vote NO

PTP would probably still get over the line under the new rules, but its been made more difficult by the sneaky coupsters rule change that is a bit like a football team changing the rules midway through a game (ie once they have the lead)

[whybother]

Exactly, and Abhisit has already flagged that he wants those opposed to not vote rather than vote NO

PTP would probably still get over the line under the new rules, but its been made more difficult by the sneaky coupsters rule change that is a bit like a football team changing the rules midway through a game (ie once they have the lead)

"A sneaky coupsters rule change"?? Like, you know, a majority!

[ogb]

Actually its even worse than just changing the rules midway through the game, because what actually happened is they colluded with the referee to unfairly get the lead, and then changed the rules to try to keep it.

[khunken]

Well, lets see. I'm not a Red Shirt, or particularly in favor of PTP, but let's look at a few "legal facts".

1) The "People's Constitution", which was lauded by other nations, DID contain a clause the made a military coup illegal.

2) The Generals ignored that and wrote a new one. Basically the same as the previous ones, but with a few "minor changes"

a) They made sure it completely absolved them of any "crime" or "wrong doing" for the coup.

True, they held a "referendum" on it, but with the stipulation that it was illegal to say anything negative about the new one, and that if the people didn't vote for it, they would stay under martial law "indefinitely". Wow, what a choice!

c) They established "independent agencies" with one agenda - Go after Thaksin in every way possible.

d) They removed any court judge who disagreed with them, replacing them with judges of their own choosing.

e) The added sections that stated THEIR constitution could not be completely rewritten or thrown out, but it might be okay to change a few things.

Sgt. Joe Friday:

All we know are the facts, ma'am.

The above are not 'facts' - more like a (failed) attempt to rewrite history which 'I'm not a red shirt, but.....' people then proceed to contradict themselves.

The referendum on the 2007 constitution was absolutely fair - no canvassing either for or against which cut out all the vote buying & intimidation that the PTP/red shirts are infamous for. They did NOT say that martial law would be imposed if it was not accepted. They said they would establish a previous constitution.

They neither removed court judges nor appointed any. Nor did they add anything to the constitution about how it might be amended or rewritten in the future.

Your post looks like a troll.

Luckily Thai Visa rules forbid abuse of fellow members, as you left yourself wide open with that "absolutely fair....." statement.

I haven't abused or intended to abuse anyone. If you are referring to the 'troll' comment, it is often given to posts which look like a distortion of facts just to initiate controversy.

Why not leave decisions on abuse to the mods?

[waza]

ogb, on 13 May 2013 - 15:09, said:

Its because the coup process (2007 constitution & coup govt) changed the referendum quorum rules.

Previously it was only necessary to win the referendum, but with the new quorum rules there is no incentive for those opposed to the resolution to vote NO, as their cause is better served if they abstain in an effort to not get the quorum (Abhisit has effectively already flagged that strategy).

Quite a nifty little trap the coupsters installed, probably well aware that they couldn't win straight elections or straight referendums.

I'm sure PTP would have a referendum any day of the week if the quorum rules were the same as the 2007 referendum (and I'm also sure they'd even allow you to campaign for a NO vote, unlike the military did in 2007)

What? Do you mean you have to get more than 50% of the voting public to support it for it to be passed? I wonder how they got the 2007 referendum passed with such draconian rules.

Are you saying that PTP don't have the support of 50% of the voting public? Are you also saying that referendums should be passed without having the support of the majority of the voters?

The current rules (iirc) are 50% of the registered voters must vote, and 50% of those must vote yes for the referendum to be successful. So the "Yes" votes need a minimum of 25%(+1) of the registered voters to vote for it, and if everyone votes, they need 50%(+1) of the votes.

Exactly, and Abhisit has already flagged that he wants those opposed to not vote rather than vote NO

PTP would probably still get over the line under the new rules, but its been made more difficult by the sneaky coupsters rule change that is a bit like a football team changing the rules midway through a game (ie once they have the lead)

OMB, another " But Abihist" post that has nothing to do with the topic.

Edited May 13, 2013 by waza

[ogb]

Well, lets see. I'm not a Red Shirt, or particularly in favor of PTP, but let's look at a few "legal facts".

1) The "People's Constitution", which was lauded by other nations, DID contain a clause the made a military coup illegal.

2) The Generals ignored that and wrote a new one. Basically the same as the previous ones, but with a few "minor changes"

a) They made sure it completely absolved them of any "crime" or "wrong doing" for the coup.

True, they held a "referendum" on it, but with the stipulation that it was illegal to say anything negative about the new one, and that if the people didn't vote for it, they would stay under martial law "indefinitely". Wow, what a choice!

c) They established "independent agencies" with one agenda - Go after Thaksin in every way possible.

d) They removed any court judge who disagreed with them, replacing them with judges of their own choosing.

e) The added sections that stated THEIR constitution could not be completely rewritten or thrown out, but it might be okay to change a few things.

Sgt. Joe Friday:

All we know are the facts, ma'am.

The above are not 'facts' - more like a (failed) attempt to rewrite history which 'I'm not a red shirt, but.....' people then proceed to contradict themselves.

The referendum on the 2007 constitution was absolutely fair - no canvassing either for or against which cut out all the vote buying & intimidation that the PTP/red shirts are infamous for. They did NOT say that martial law would be imposed if it was not accepted. They said they would establish a previous constitution.

They neither removed court judges nor appointed any. Nor did they add anything to the constitution about how it might be amended or rewritten in the future.

Your post looks like a troll.

Luckily Thai Visa rules forbid abuse of fellow members, as you left yourself wide open with that "absolutely fair....." statement.

I haven't abused or intended to abuse anyone. If you are referring to the 'troll' comment, it is often given to posts which look like a distortion of facts just to initiate controversy.

Why not leave decisions on abuse to the mods?

Someone making such an absurd statement as "The referendum on the 2007 constitution was absolutely fair" would normally be subject to a lot of ridicule.

Anyway, I'm done with this discussion because my previous post sums up the situation concisely, and if you still don't get it, there's nothing more I can do.

[khunken]

Someone making such an absurd statement as "The referendum on the 2007 constitution was absolutely fair" would normally be subject to a lot of ridicule.

Anyway, I'm done with this discussion because my previous post sums up the situation concisely, and if you still don't get it, there's nothing more I can do.

Well you're previous post here had nothing to do with anything on topic.

In comparison to general elections here, the referendum was fair - in the context of what I wrote that followed (which you deliberately omit). Not only do you act like a wannabe mod, but you also take comments out of context. Credibility - zero.

[waza]

Back on topic, If I was a Thaksin supporter, and I am not, I would go forget the house resolution option and go with the coup option. Get the Redshirts/blackshirts involved. Thaksin already has his war room and his war chest, but it will cost him plenty. The more people he involves on his side, backers and protestors, the more they have to loose. The sympathy vote alone would get them back into power at the next election. That and pinning the financial ruin of Thailand on the coup government. They just need something to protest about and someone to protest.

Edited May 14, 2013 by waza

[Robby nz]

You gotta know when to hold them, you gotta know when to fold them....................................................

Has the gambler in Dubai seen how much support he is losing and realized that if he and PT continue on the same path till the time of the next General election they have no show of winning?

Should they be able to win a snap election now it would give them, at the least another 2 years round the honey pot.

More importantly he (PT) could say it was a mandate from the people to bring him back free of charge(s).

[MobileContent]

My guess will be snap election with a referendum at the same time if they really dissolve the house.

Will they win? That's for sure. Democrats don't win elections any more and I wouldn't be surprised if Khun Suthep wants to become the next PM of Thailand.

Regarding a post that Isaan will sell their vote. All parties pay money via their canvassers and the same happens in the South via the democrats. If nobody would pay money in Isaan, they would still vote PTP.

So let's all sit back and watch the show.

The results are the same !

There won't be a referendum. The election will be the "referendum".

"Vote for us for rice pledging, computer tablets, fast train, or any other reason, and we'll take it that you voted for us because you want Thaksin's crimes wiped clean."

Let's wait and see. To early and only time will tell

[whybother]

My guess will be snap election with a referendum at the same time if they really dissolve the house.

Will they win? That's for sure. Democrats don't win elections any more and I wouldn't be surprised if Khun Suthep wants to become the next PM of Thailand.

Regarding a post that Isaan will sell their vote. All parties pay money via their canvassers and the same happens in the South via the democrats. If nobody would pay money in Isaan, they would still vote PTP.

So let's all sit back and watch the show.

The results are the same !

There won't be a referendum. The election will be the "referendum".

"Vote for us for rice pledging, computer tablets, fast train, or any other reason, and we'll take it that you voted for us because you want Thaksin's crimes wiped clean."

Let's wait and see. To early and only time will tell

Why would they hold an election AND a referendum?