Democrat leader Abhisit proposes reconsideration of Feb 2 election

[siampolee]

Strangely enough GK Abhisit isn't grasping at straws, he like many others recognizes just how volatile the current situation is .Those others also include your heroes sister Yingluck.

[honzad]

The EC have suggested that the election be postponed and pointed out how that can be done.

Abhisit is agreeing with them, what is so wrong with that ?

The reason for postponement, as everyone should know by now, is to put reforms in place before a new Govt takes office.

If this is done it will mean that the much needed reforms can be done in a unilateral manner and are set in place before an election and therefor not left up to the whim of the next Govt.

Who could and possibly would say "we have a majority we will do it our way" something that would only lead to more trouble.

What reforms? We hear this again and again but no substance. Here are Suthep's suggestions:

1. Nobody called Shinawatra allowed to stay in Thailand.

2. Nobody allowed to vote unless they understand that Suthep is right.

3. Suthep chosen as new president by decree.

4. Errr - that's it...

[pisico]

The EC have suggested that the election be postponed and pointed out how that can be done.

Abhisit is agreeing with them, what is so wrong with that ?

The reason for postponement, as everyone should know by now, is to put reforms in place before a new Govt takes office.

If this is done it will mean that the much needed reforms can be done in a unilateral manner and are set in place before an election and therefor not left up to the whim of the next Govt.

Who could and possibly would say "we have a majority we will do it our way" something that would only lead to more trouble.

QUOTE

"The reason for postponement, as everyone should know by now, is to put reforms in place before a new Govt takes office."

If the reforms are so needed why during the years that Abhisit and the other Democrat MPs were in office after the coup, why they did not push for the reforms THEN and NOW they so vehemently are proposing, almost deeming it a necessity before an impending political catastrophe takes place?

Reform was needed a long time ago but then, since they were in power; why bother?

The reason you allude to is that little detail the Democrats always try to mold and/or ignore to suit their convenience and advantage: THE CONSTITUTION.

[pisico]

Can there really be reform, unless the proponents of the reforms, i.e. those who will enact the laws aka reforms have legitimacy?

In a democracy, that legitimacy comes from the elections. Some people are calling for reform, but haven't explained how they would address the legalities of such reforms. Having unelected magical councils doesn't do the trick.

In any case, Abhisit is now seeing who the Surat thani/Phuket rump is loyal to. He could have asserted his power back when he was PM, but IMO he wouldn't take on the corrupt robber barons of the south. Had he cleaned up his own party first, he would have the moral legitimacy to take on PTP. Abhisit is a man without power, with few political allies and in desperate search of support. He's grasping at straws now to try and avoid what looks like another electoral defeat.

Objective, concise and well articulated. Will ruffle the feathers of those in Denial of the obvious.

Congrats!

[rijb]

It would appear Thais are too busy squabbling to be able to run their own country just now.

Perhaps they should consider letting 'aliens' do it for them? width=25 alt=thumbsup.gif pagespeed_url_hash=1443177670>

You mean the one's from Mars? alt=tongue.png pagespeed_url_hash=3761137055 width=20 height=20>

Dennis Rodman might be available, to meet with Suthep, after his N. Korea visit.

[jayboy]

Ummm ... did you read the comment about the poll where people preferred the Democrat policies?

If the Democrats supposedly copy Thaksin's policies, and people don't vote for them, does that mean that Thaksin's policies are no good?

No, it means the Thai people are not idiots and can see through political opportunism.

To stand a fighting chance the Democrats must become a genuinely national party, detoxify its reputation,geniunely embrace electoral democracy (ie not rely on military and judicial intervention), cut its links with feudal and military vested interests, build up a large membership base and of course eject discredited leaders.

[HUAHIN62]

He is only putting off the inevitable .They have no strong policy which is needed to win an election ,history proves this with the democratic party .

Actually, a poll around the last election showed that people preferred the Democrat policies.

Blind loyalty not policies seem to matter for some voters

...

When asked to pick proposed policies that they prefer, without knowing which parties the policies belong to - the majority of Northeastern voters sampled selected platforms of the Democrat Party.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2011/06/20/opinion/Blind-loyalty-not-policies-seem-to-matter-for-some-30158200.html

The problem is the Dems never implement their policies. Even if you don't agree with PT or their policies, you should agree that they have implemented most of their promised policies.

[falangadang]

Actually, a poll around the last election showed that people preferred the Democrat policies.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2011/06/20/opinion/Blind-loyalty-not-policies-seem-to-matter-for-some-30158200.html

It could be argued that "trust" is just as important as individual policies are in such opinion polls. Concealing the names of the parties behind the policies removes that crucial element, which has a big influence on voter's decisions. At the very least, these results demonstrate how much distrust has a role in Thai voter's decisions.

I agree. But many posters seem to think the Democrats lose because of their policies.

Most people in Thailand don't vote for policies, they just vote for the same families that they have always voted for, regardless of which party they are in.

"they just vote for the same families that they have always voted for, regardless of which party they are in."

Thats not too different from the way things are in UK and AUS,... vote for the Liberal/Tories or Labour depending on who your dad and grandad always voted for!

[DGIE]

avoiding election? Is it obvious that they don't believe to win?

[Robby nz]

It would seem I have a couple of posts to answer.

What reforms? We hear this again and again but no substance. Here are Suthep's suggestions:

1. Nobody called Shinawatra allowed to stay in Thailand.

2. Nobody allowed to vote unless they understand that Suthep is right.

3. Suthep chosen as new president by decree.

4. Errr - that's it...

1. He has never said that all Shinawataras must leave Thailand only that they should never be in Government.

2. That is pure fantasy he has never said anything like that.

3. He has said that he will not accept any position in Government and will retire completely from politics when a reform drafting assembly is put in place

4. he is saying that there must be reforms put in place before an election is held.

He is saying this because he does not trust whoever is in the next Govt to put reforms in place. Do you ?

Anyone who doesn't believe this country needs reforms has not seen what has gone on in the past 2 years.

"The reason for postponement, as everyone should know by now, is to put reforms in place before a new Govt takes office."

If the reforms are so needed why during the years that Abhisit and the other Democrat MPs were in office after the coup, why they did not push for the reforms THEN and NOW they so vehemently are proposing, almost deeming it a necessity before an impending political catastrophe takes place?

Reform was needed a long time ago but then, since they were in power; why bother?

The reason you allude to is that little detail the Democrats always try to mold and/or ignore to suit their convenience and advantage: THE CONSTITUTION.

The reason for reform has only been highlighted by the performance of the PT government in the last 2 years

.

PT's attempts to destroy the checks and balances by acts like inserting their own people in key positions and cutting the budgets of organisations like the NACC, introducing bills that would give amnesty to criminals and absolving corruption, altering the senate so family and friends of MP's could sit and borrowing money outside budget for schemes without proper plans or consultation have brought the need for changes to the attention of the people.

If you look at the numbers you will see that corruption started to drop during the Dems time in power and rose sharply in the last 2 years.

Another reason that reforms are now more urgent.

As for ignoring the constitution; tell me who was it that refused to accept the constitution courts decision.

Then please detail how the Dems always try to take advantage of the constitution.

[FangFerang]

Aw, come on, guys! In the East (you do realize we are in the East), this is how things are done to compromise. Americans and Europeans would sit down, after making sure their constituencies were protected, and draft a proposal. Here, form is more important than function, or at least just as important. We meet a family. We should wai the youngest one first and save the best wai for the eldest (sort of like saving the best for last).

Kuhn Abhisit said "We should jointly solve the problem".

This is Good News! It means they are reaching compromise, which means no one takes the cake (anymore) ...you get this and I get that.

This is the best news in many weeks..for Thais. Not for us. It is not our country.

It is not our country. We are watching a unique democracy evolve according to their own standards...

I consider this one fragment a Christmas present--and I am Buddhist.

YAY!

Sincerely.

Me

[tingtongteesood]

Abhisit and Suthep both never wanted an election, they want the Shin's gone so there is an outside chance of having a fair election without Thaksin's cronies rigging the results....What they should aim to do really is let PT win the election, but make damn sure the huge loan is never allowed to happen. Then PT either have to run the country on no money, or stop pocketing the money to run the country since the tax pot is now empty. Let's see how they fare in a year when millions of pissed off farmers are protesting for the money they are owed...

[Sing_Sling]

Quite right.

The only 'polls' that count are the elections themselves, everything else is irrelevant to reality

So what you're saying is that it's irrelevant what policies people prefer.

Is that what you wish me to be saying . . . because I can't fathom how you can get that out of my post.

Here's the reality:

People vote.

People vote for whatever reason.

The party with the most votes wins.

This win is a mandate given by the majority of the voting public to govern with the policies the winners ran their campaign on.

I would say that is fairly simple. . . no?

You're saying that it is irrelevant what party the voters cast their ballot for?

[pisico]

Quite right.

The only 'polls' that count are the elections themselves, everything else is irrelevant to reality

So what you're saying is that it's irrelevant what policies people prefer.

Is that what you wish me to be saying . . . because I can't fathom how you can get that out of my post.

Here's the reality:

People vote.

People vote for whatever reason.

The party with the most votes wins.

This win is a mandate given by the majority of the voting public to govern with the policies the winners ran their campaign on.

I would say that is fairly simple. . . no?

You're saying that it is irrelevant what party the voters cast their ballot for?

Sinsing: The use of Sophistry shunts the issue to distract you in a different direction. Congrats! you did not fall for it.

[Ulic]

Got what they wanted and now don't want it. Same old story they know they won't win!

Somebody managed to get at the EC to even have this considered, ridiculous situation.

As the expression goes, be careful what you wish for you may get it.

[whybother]

He is only putting off the inevitable .They have no strong policy which is needed to win an election ,history proves this with the democratic party .

Actually, a poll around the last election showed that people preferred the Democrat policies.

Blind loyalty not policies seem to matter for some voters

...

When asked to pick proposed policies that they prefer, without knowing which parties the policies belong to - the majority of Northeastern voters sampled selected platforms of the Democrat Party.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2011/06/20/opinion/Blind-loyalty-not-policies-seem-to-matter-for-some-30158200.html

The problem is the Dems never implement their policies. Even if you don't agree with PT or their policies, you should agree that they have implemented most of their promised policies.

When the Democrats were in power they did implement their policies. They were only in power of 2 years. Subsidised education. A rice scheme where the money wasn't siphoned off by the Miller's and the middlemen.

Sent from my phone ...

[whybother]

Quite right.

The only 'polls' that count are the elections themselves, everything else is irrelevant to reality

So what you're saying is that it's irrelevant what policies people prefer.

Is that what you wish me to be saying . . . because I can't fathom how you can get that out of my post.

Here's the reality:

People vote.

People vote for whatever reason.

The party with the most votes wins.

This win is a mandate given by the majority of the voting public to govern with the policies the winners ran their campaign on.

I would say that is fairly simple. . . no?

You're saying that it is irrelevant what party the voters cast their ballot for?

The issue that is constantly raised is that the Democrats should have policies that the people want so they can get elected. That poll showed that they DO have policies that the people want. Is that poll irrelevant?

Sent from my phone ...

[Mackie]

The problem is the Dems never implement their policies. Even if you don't agree with PT or their policies, you should agree that they have implemented most of their promised policies.

Would you please enlighten us with successfully implemented policies of the current PTP government? If you meant that they managed to blew a massive hole in Thai economy, then I agree with you. Or increased cost of living and inflation. Take off your blinkers.

How Thailand/s botched rice scheme blew a big hole in its economy...www.world.time.com

[GeorgeO]

Actually, a poll around the last election showed that people preferred the Democrat policies.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2011/06/20/opinion/Blind-loyalty-not-policies-seem-to-matter-for-some-30158200.html

It could be argued that "trust" is just as important as individual policies are in such opinion polls. Concealing the names of the parties behind the policies removes that crucial element, which has a big influence on voter's decisions. At the very least, these results demonstrate how much distrust has a role in Thai voter's decisions.

I agree. But many posters seem to think the Democrats lose because of their policies.

Most people in Thailand don't vote for policies, they just vote for the same families that they have always voted for, regardless of which party they are in.

Nonsense.People in Thailand are like people anywhere else.They vote for politicians and parties they believe will best serve the needs of their country, their communities, their families and themselves.

If the Democrats thought they had a snowball's chance in hell of winning the election on February 2nd there would be no talk of delay.

The answer to the Democrats problem is of course is to develop policies likely to appeal to the country at large (not just by copying Thaksin's policies as they did last time) and eject the failed leadership.But what they have actually done is to drift further to the reactionary right, and ditch the one person who understood what was needed to make the party re-electable (Alongkorn).

They deserve their coming failure.

...and you honestly believe that the people are of the opinion that PTP "will best serve the needs of their country, their communities, their families and themselves"...?

Wake up, and get yourself ready for the wake up call that up-country voters are ultimately set to deliver to this crooked regime.

The coming failure will be that of the Shinawatra dynasty....!!

[harada]

It would appear Thais are too busy squabbling to be able to run their own country just now.

Perhaps they should consider letting 'aliens' do it for them?

They are ,from palnet Dubai.

[binjalin]

Quite right.

The only 'polls' that count are the elections themselves, everything else is irrelevant to reality

So what you're saying is that it's irrelevant what policies people prefer.

Is that what you wish me to be saying . . . because I can't fathom how you can get that out of my post.

Here's the reality:

People vote.

People vote for whatever reason.

The party with the most votes wins.

This win is a mandate given by the majority of the voting public to govern with the policies the winners ran their campaign on.

I would say that is fairly simple. . . no?

You're saying that it is irrelevant what party the voters cast their ballot for?

The issue that is constantly raised is that the Democrats should have policies that the people want so they can get elected. That poll showed that they DO have policies that the people want. Is that poll irrelevant?

Sent from my phone ...

they will have no problem at the elections then

[whybother]

The issue that is constantly raised is that the Democrats should have policies that the people want so they can get elected. That poll showed that they DO have policies that the people want. Is that poll irrelevant?

Sent from my phone ...

they will have no problem at the elections then

*sigh*

It seems that some people have a problem with reading.

[jayboy]

Actually, a poll around the last election showed that people preferred the Democrat policies.

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2011/06/20/opinion/Blind-loyalty-not-policies-seem-to-matter-for-some-30158200.html

It could be argued that "trust" is just as important as individual policies are in such opinion polls. Concealing the names of the parties behind the policies removes that crucial element, which has a big influence on voter's decisions. At the very least, these results demonstrate how much distrust has a role in Thai voter's decisions.

I agree. But many posters seem to think the Democrats lose because of their policies.

Most people in Thailand don't vote for policies, they just vote for the same families that they have always voted for, regardless of which party they are in.

Nonsense.People in Thailand are like people anywhere else.They vote for politicians and parties they believe will best serve the needs of their country, their communities, their families and themselves.

If the Democrats thought they had a snowball's chance in hell of winning the election on February 2nd there would be no talk of delay.

The answer to the Democrats problem is of course is to develop policies likely to appeal to the country at large (not just by copying Thaksin's policies as they did last time) and eject the failed leadership.But what they have actually done is to drift further to the reactionary right, and ditch the one person who understood what was needed to make the party re-electable (Alongkorn).

They deserve their coming failure.

...and you honestly believe that the people are of the opinion that PTP "will best serve the needs of their country, their communities, their families and themselves"...?

Wake up, and get yourself ready for the wake up call that up-country voters are ultimately set to deliver to this crooked regime.

The coming failure will be that of the Shinawatra dynasty....!!

You have failed to grasp the point.The issue is not whether PTP or any other party will measure up but rather the criteria all voters apply when making choices.

[Sing_Sling]

Quite right.

The only 'polls' that count are the elections themselves, everything else is irrelevant to reality

So what you're saying is that it's irrelevant what policies people prefer.

Is that what you wish me to be saying . . . because I can't fathom how you can get that out of my post.

Here's the reality:

People vote.

People vote for whatever reason.

The party with the most votes wins.

This win is a mandate given by the majority of the voting public to govern with the policies the winners ran their campaign on.

I would say that is fairly simple. . . no?

You're saying that it is irrelevant what party the voters cast their ballot for?

The issue that is constantly raised is that the Democrats should have policies that the people want so they can get elected. That poll showed that they DO have policies that the people want. Is that poll irrelevant?

Sent from my phone ...

Of course it is irrelevant . . . it would only be relevant if the voters would vote for these policies. Perhaps you can show me the disconnect between what a poll shows and what the voters choose.

If you wish to eliminate the democratic process and replace it with a telephone poll of 3000-or so people then just loom at the US elections where there were more virtually more polls than voters, all going in different directions with differeing outcomes.

Why is it so difficult to accept that the only thing that counts is the number of votes cast?

Ok, here's an example. You, in your home country, go to cast your ballot for the person/party you wish to be in power. As you arrive at the booth you are told that your vote isn't required as a poll of 3000 people done by Polls R Us has declared the winner according to their wishes.

You then contentedly go home, even if your chosen party/person didn't win according to the poll

You'd accept that, would you?

[Sing_Sling]

The issue that is constantly raised is that the Democrats should have policies that the people want so they can get elected. That poll showed that they DO have policies that the people want. Is that poll irrelevant?

Sent from my phone ...

they will have no problem at the elections then

*sigh*

It seems that some people have a problem with reading.

No, it seems some people have a problem understanding the concept of voting

[whybother]

Of course it is irrelevant . . . it would only be relevant if the voters would vote for these policies. Perhaps you can show me the disconnect between what a poll shows and what the voters choose.

If you wish to eliminate the democratic process and replace it with a telephone poll of 3000-or so people then just loom at the US elections where there were more virtually more polls than voters, all going in different directions with differeing outcomes.

Why is it so difficult to accept that the only thing that counts is the number of votes cast?

Ok, here's an example. You, in your home country, go to cast your ballot for the person/party you wish to be in power. As you arrive at the booth you are told that your vote isn't required as a poll of 3000 people done by Polls R Us has declared the winner according to their wishes.

You then contentedly go home, even if your chosen party/person didn't win according to the poll

You'd accept that, would you?

The comment was that the Democrats should have policies that the people want, then they would get elected. The poll showed that they did have policies that the people want, but they didn't get elected.

It has nothing to do with "eliminating the democratic process". It is about debunking the idea that people don't like the Democrat's policies.

[oldsailor35]

If this is done it will mean that the much needed reforms can be done in a unilateral manner and are set in place before an election and therefor not left up to the whim of the next Govt.

Read that sentence again. Did you really mean to write that?

Just how long can a country go without an election. Judging by the way that Benito Suthep changes his mind, it will take many years to reach any reform decision. Therefore the only way is to have an election ASAP and then discuss reform. Surely this is common sense.

[Sing_Sling]

Of course it is irrelevant . . . it would only be relevant if the voters would vote for these policies. Perhaps you can show me the disconnect between what a poll shows and what the voters choose.

If you wish to eliminate the democratic process and replace it with a telephone poll of 3000-or so people then just loom at the US elections where there were more virtually more polls than voters, all going in different directions with differeing outcomes.

Why is it so difficult to accept that the only thing that counts is the number of votes cast?

Ok, here's an example. You, in your home country, go to cast your ballot for the person/party you wish to be in power. As you arrive at the booth you are told that your vote isn't required as a poll of 3000 people done by Polls R Us has declared the winner according to their wishes.

You then contentedly go home, even if your chosen party/person didn't win according to the poll

You'd accept that, would you?

The comment was that the Democrats should have policies that the people want, then they would get elected. The poll showed that they did have policies that the people want, but they didn't get elected.

It has nothing to do with "eliminating the democratic process". It is about debunking the idea that people don't like the Democrat's policies.

Of course the Democrats have policies that people will vote for - what is so amazing about that revelation?

All parties have policies that people vote for - even you could set up a party and call it the 'I love Cockroaches Party' and have as your sole policy the emancipation of cockroaches . . . and you'd be certain of getting a vote among 20 million or so eligible voters.

That still doesn't mean that you should be seen as winning an election

[bunuel]

Indeed! Astonishing that old Etonian Abhisit cannot ask fellow Etonian David Cameron for some advice on how a conservative party can win a democratic election! Examples abound in western Europe and the United States - from Maggie Thatcher to W. to Sarkozy. As the risk of oversimplifying, it is a question of money and brains - both resources the opposition must possess in spades. And since Abhist and Sutthep claim to speak for " the people", how could they not win an election??")

Again, he wants to postpone, and again, he fails to propose a legal basis for doing so.

The government does not set the election date. The independent Election Commission does. The EC actually wants to postpone, but they can't because the constitution doesn't let them.

[bunuel]

Indeed! Astonishing that old Etonian Abhisit cannot ask fellow Etonian David Cameron for some advice on how a conservative party can win a democratic election! Examples abound in western Europe and the United States - from Maggie Thatcher to W. to Sarkozy. As the risk of oversimplifying, it is a question of money and brains - both resources the opposition must possess in spades. And since Abhist and Sutthep claim to speak for " the people", how could they not win an election??")

Again, he wants to postpone, and again, he fails to propose a legal basis for doing so.

The government does not set the election date. The independent Election Commission does. The EC actually wants to postpone, but they can't because the constitution doesn't let them.