Abhisit ready to be replaced if party members want that

[useronthenet]

The main problem is that Thailand is not yet ready for a person like Abhisit, one which is educated and seemingly not prone to corruption. He is however treated by his Thai peers as a 'coconut', outside Thai, but on the inside British, and this trait disturbs many in Thai society. The values to which he was taught are not something which will be imbraced especially in Thai politics, and therefore he will sadly not succeed.

Rubbish.Thais have no issue with Westernised leaders eg Kukrit and Anand.Abhisit stinks as a politician because he can't communicate, has a weird personality and lacks courage.His dismal failure has nothing to do with his Western education.

Short memory ...

http://asiancorrespondent.com/48726/is-the-thai-pm-a-british-citizen-part-ii/

His UK citizenship was always a contentious issue with the politicians, who tried to use this as a way of ousting him out of politics.

Quote "has a weird personality and lacks courage.His dismal failure has nothing to do with his Western education." Please can you explain what you mean by this ?

Perhaps you can suggest who would be best suited to become a democratically elected leader with the qualities to bring Thailand into the 21st Century ? A leader who's not interested in feathering his or her own nest, one which isn't corrupt, or will bow down to peer pressure. A leader which would be an acceptable face of Thailand, not a junta or self imposed leader ? Is there one such leader in Thailand today ?

[airconsult]

"Pheu Thai's most popular policies were the rice-pledging scheme and the increase in minimum wages. I refused to propose such policies, because I believe they would bring damage to the country."

No - he shouldn't stand down - he's like any politician - he moved to increase the minimum wage one month before the elections in 2011.

But of course he assumes we all have goldfish memories....

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-11-26/thailand-s-abhisit-wants-to-increase-minimum-wage-in-2011.html

[jayboy]

The main problem is that Thailand is not yet ready for a person like Abhisit, one which is educated and seemingly not prone to corruption. He is however treated by his Thai peers as a 'coconut', outside Thai, but on the inside British, and this trait disturbs many in Thai society. The values to which he was taught are not something which will be imbraced especially in Thai politics, and therefore he will sadly not succeed.

Rubbish.Thais have no issue with Westernised leaders eg Kukrit and Anand.Abhisit stinks as a politician because he can't communicate, has a weird personality and lacks courage.His dismal failure has nothing to do with his Western education.

Short memory ...

http://asiancorrespondent.com/48726/is-the-thai-pm-a-british-citizen-part-ii/

His UK citizenship was always a contentious issue with the politicians, who tried to use this as a way of ousting him out of politics.

Quote "has a weird personality and lacks courage.His dismal failure has nothing to do with his Western education." Please can you explain what you mean by this ?

Perhaps you can suggest who would be best suited to become a democratically elected leader with the qualities to bring Thailand into the 21st Century ? A leader who's not interested in feathering his or her own nest, one which isn't corrupt, or will bow down to peer pressure. A leader which would be an acceptable face of Thailand, not a junta or self imposed leader ? Is there one such leader in Thailand today ?

Alongkorn Ponlaboot among the Democrats comes to mind.He has vision and a willingness to reform his party and I think a national appeal.The Democrats told him to screw himself - the leadership prefers its election losing strategy.

As to Abhisit I don't think his defects need much elaboration.

[rickirs]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

At least the Democrats elect their leaders, rather than appointing family members.

Unlike the military generals appointing subordinates to government positions? At least family can have disagreements.

[airconsult]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

At least the Democrats elect their leaders, rather than appointing family members.

Unlike the military generals appointing subordinates to government positions? At least family can have disagreements.

Well... it's a cosy little circle - Abhisit's father was appointed Deputy Minister of public health in 1991 after the coup then, and totally by accident of course, his dad become a director of CP Foods in early 2009 after Abhisit became PM.

It's all innocent though......

[jpeg]

Many under achieving leaders would have resigned long ago. He has his cronies in the party membership who will never elect another leader. Really up to him to see his own failures and not be a liability to his party and the country and resign.

Can you name 10 under achieving leaders who resigned? There are a few. But worldwide I can't find 10.

Alone in Europe and USA hundreds or thousands would have to resign.

In Europe and the USA, Leaders usually are forced to resign over petty sex scandals or, in the case of Nixon, bugging Opposition headquarters. Could you see that happening here? Hardly apples and oranges is it.

I do wish posters would stop trotting out the West for comparisons on each and every topic here. 'East is East and West is West and never the twain shall meet' is true, even today.

Oh and BTW, I believe Abbhisit's the best they have as opposed to Total Dictatorship Forever.

Edited October 6, 2014 by jpeg

[rickirs]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

"Pheu Thai's most popular policies were the rice-pledging scheme and the increase in minimum wages. I refused to propose such policies, because I believe they would bring damage to the country."

No - he shouldn't stand down - he's like any politician - he moved to increase the minimum wage one month before the elections in 2011.

But of course he assumes we all have goldfish memories....

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-11-26/thailand-s-abhisit-wants-to-increase-minimum-wage-in-2011.html

Goldfish memories are good to almost 5-months.

[belg]

does he have to right to try for british MP or PM ?

[Eric Loh]

The main problem is that Thailand is not yet ready for a person like Abhisit, one which is educated and seemingly not prone to corruption. He is however treated by his Thai peers as a 'coconut', outside Thai, but on the inside British, and this trait disturbs many in Thai society. The values to which he was taught are not something which will be imbraced especially in Thai politics, and therefore he will sadly not succeed.

Rubbish.Thais have no issue with Westernised leaders eg Kukrit and Anand.Abhisit stinks as a politician because he can't communicate, has a weird personality and lacks courage.His dismal failure has nothing to do with his Western education.

Short memory ...

http://asiancorrespondent.com/48726/is-the-thai-pm-a-british-citizen-part-ii/

His UK citizenship was always a contentious issue with the politicians, who tried to use this as a way of ousting him out of politics.

Quote "has a weird personality and lacks courage.His dismal failure has nothing to do with his Western education." Please can you explain what you mean by this ?

Perhaps you can suggest who would be best suited to become a democratically elected leader with the qualities to bring Thailand into the 21st Century ? A leader who's not interested in feathering his or her own nest, one which isn't corrupt, or will bow down to peer pressure. A leader which would be an acceptable face of Thailand, not a junta or self imposed leader ? Is there one such leader in Thailand today ?

Alongkorn Ponlaboot among the Democrats comes to mind.He has vision and a willingness to reform his party and I think a national appeal.The Democrats told him to screw himself - the leadership prefers its election losing strategy.

As to Abhisit I don't think his defects need much elaboration.

Alongkorn is out of the question if he is selected to seat in the NRC. That's 5 years grace period for him to participate in future election. I think he will be selected to the NRC based n his bold reform ideas.

Ahbisit and Yingluck are not good material for premiership as both are weak leaders, never decisive in their decision making and don't have leadership incumbency.

[jayboy]

"In the 2007 election, the Democrats actually beat PPP in the Party List vote."

No, they didn't. PPP won the North by 500,000 in 2007, much closer than 2011 when the difference was over a million votes: http://asiancorrespondent.com/66503/analysis-of-the-2011-thai-election-part-3-comparison-with-the-2007-election/

But there's not much point speculating about the next election because no one even knows what the electoral system will look like after the "reforms" are finished. Somehow can't see them leaving it how it is for Thaksin's party to win again... not after all this effort to get PT out.

There are speculation that the electoral system reform will looks like Hong Kong with both houses filled with appointees i.e. the good guys. There also likely to be lots of horse trading with mid size and small political parties to form a coalition and re-emergence of old political heavy weights. Anything and everything to diminish the electability of Thaksin' s party.

Yes, functional constituencies with a fully appointed senate is one idea I've seen discussed. But I can't see such radically anti-democratic reforms being implemented without resistance... I guess we'll know in a year or so. A lot could change before then of course.

I don't have a huge objection to a partially or at a stretch to a fully appointed Senate.Devil is in the detail of course.However the absolutely key point is that such an assembly can only check or delay decisions/legislation of the lower fully elected (one person one vote) house.Ultimately the elected house must prevail.This is an absolute sine qua non.However the Senate is not to be taken lightly and the government of the day must woprk with both houses.

[JAG]

does he have to right to try for british MP or PM ?

That would entail winning an election, which is not exactly his strongest suite!

[gamini]

"He said the Democrats can still win in the North, South and Central regions"

Is there more than one North in Thailand ? Which North is he talking about ? Don't think the North will come easy if at all. This is going to go on for years.

Have a look at the image on right under Yingluck and Abhisit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thai_general_election,_2011

PTP win many of their central and northern seats with as little as 30% of the vote, so it wouldn't take too much to get over the line there. In the 2007 election, the Democrats actually beat PPP in the Party List vote.

The North EAST is a completely different story.

"In the 2007 election, the Democrats actually beat PPP in the Party List vote."

No, they didn't. PPP won the North by 500,000 in 2007, much closer than 2011 when the difference was over a million votes: http://asiancorrespondent.com/66503/analysis-of-the-2011-thai-election-part-3-comparison-with-the-2007-election/

But there's not much point speculating about the next election because no one even knows what the electoral system will look like after the "reforms" are finished. Somehow can't see them leaving it how it is for Thaksin's party to win again... not after all this effort to get PT out.

Taksin spent billions trying to destroy and discredit Abhisit. He suceeded. I think Abhisait is the best person to lead the country again.

[tbthailand]

"He said the Democrats can still win in the North, South and Central regions"

Is there more than one North in Thailand ? Which North is he talking about ? Don't think the North will come easy if at all. This is going to go on for years.

Have a look at the image on right under Yingluck and Abhisit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thai_general_election,_2011

PTP win many of their central and northern seats with as little as 30% of the vote, so it wouldn't take too much to get over the line there. In the 2007 election, the Democrats actually beat PPP in the Party List vote.

The North EAST is a completely different story.

"In the 2007 election, the Democrats actually beat PPP in the Party List vote."

No, they didn't. PPP won the North by 500,000 in 2007, much closer than 2011 when the difference was over a million votes: http://asiancorrespondent.com/66503/analysis-of-the-2011-thai-election-part-3-comparison-with-the-2007-election/

But there's not much point speculating about the next election because no one even knows what the electoral system will look like after the "reforms" are finished. Somehow can't see them leaving it how it is for Thaksin's party to win again... not after all this effort to get PT out.

because no one even knows what the electoral system will look like after the "reforms"

Dem votes count 3x - that ought to do the trick.

[tbthailand]

we shouldn't be so hard on poor Abhisit. He's led the party only since 2005 and losing elections has been a proud tradition in the party since 1992.

[whybother]

we shouldn't be so hard on poor Abhisit. He's led the party only since 2005 and losing elections has been a proud tradition in the party since 1992.

You make it sound like Thailand only had 2 parties and the Democrat opposition always get more than 50% of the vote.

Should all the parties that don't win get rid of their leader?

[Robespiere]

Abhisit is a dud, always has been.

All he ever was, was a presentable front man for the ruling elite, just an empty suit.

The Thai people aren't stupid - that's why Abhisit never won an election, they could see him for what he is - a dud.

Now, with democracy all but dead and buried, who needs a front man anymore.

Goodbye, so long, you've played your role in destroying freedom in this land, now on your way.

[tbthailand]

we shouldn't be so hard on poor Abhisit. He's led the party only since 2005 and losing elections has been a proud tradition in the party since 1992.

You make it sound like Thailand only had 2 parties and the Democrat opposition always get more than 50% of the vote.

Should all the parties that don't win get rid of their leader?

why would you think that? it's a multi-party system - no party needs 50% or more to 'win'.

quiz time -

the last time the anti-democrats won an election and formed a government, what % of the vote did they get?

[whybother]

we shouldn't be so hard on poor Abhisit. He's led the party only since 2005 and losing elections has been a proud tradition in the party since 1992.

You make it sound like Thailand only had 2 parties and the Democrat opposition always get more than 50% of the vote.

Should all the parties that don't win get rid of their leader?

why would you think that? it's a multi-party system - no party needs 50% or more to 'win'.

quiz time -

the last time the anti-democrats won an election and formed a government, what % of the vote did they get?

Read it again! "YOU make it sound ...". I know it's a multi-party system.

The Democrats regularly get 1/3 of the vote. That's not too bad in a multi-party system.

The only reason TRT/PPP/PTP get as many votes as they do is because Thaksin bought many of the smaller parties into TRT. The people in the NE have been voting for the same families for decades, it's just that now they instead of being in the smaller parties they are in Thaksin's proxy parties.

[whybother]

Abhisit is a dud, always has been.

All he ever was, was a presentable front man for the ruling elite, just an empty suit.

The Thai people aren't stupid - that's why Abhisit never won an election, they could see him for what he is - a dud.

Now, with democracy all but dead and buried, who needs a front man anymore.

Goodbye, so long, you've played your role in destroying freedom in this land, now on your way.

Thaksin lost many elections until he formed TRT by buying up the small NE parties.

[halloween]

DTL2014 I think that you are confused. The list of Khun Abhisit's failed projects is long and embarrassing. While his claimed successes brought him to criminal court and ridicule. I'm sure that Mark Abhisit Verejever is a loyal Thai Citizen and is personally Trustworthy. However IMO he is not a suitable candidate for reelection in Thailand.

"...Abhisit Verejever is a loyal Thai Citizen and is personally Trustworthy. However IMO he is not a suitable candidate for reelection in Thailand."

Not the qualities you would look for then?

[halloween]

I don't have a huge objection to a partially or at a stretch to a fully appointed Senate.Devil is in the detail of course.However the absolutely key point is that such an assembly can only check or delay decisions/legislation of the lower fully elected (one person one vote) house.Ultimately the elected house must prevail.This is an absolute sine qua non.However the Senate is not to be taken lightly and the government of the day must woprk with both houses.

With the sentiment expressed above, I hope that you will join me in disparaging the party list system. ALL MPs should be elected by an electorate, after facing their intense scrutiny and possibility of rejection (Oh NO! What a loss of face.)

The party list allows the wealthy to "buy" popular politicians and use their votes to appoint themselves, family, unelectable scum like Chalerm, and criminals facing prosecution to the highest offices of the land.

[jayboy]

I don't have a huge objection to a partially or at a stretch to a fully appointed Senate.Devil is in the detail of course.However the absolutely key point is that such an assembly can only check or delay decisions/legislation of the lower fully elected (one person one vote) house.Ultimately the elected house must prevail.This is an absolute sine qua non.However the Senate is not to be taken lightly and the government of the day must woprk with both houses.

With the sentiment expressed above, I hope that you will join me in disparaging the party list system. ALL MPs should be elected by an electorate, after facing their intense scrutiny and possibility of rejection (Oh NO! What a loss of face.)

The party list allows the wealthy to "buy" popular politicians and use their votes to appoint themselves, family, unelectable scum like Chalerm, and criminals facing prosecution to the highest offices of the land.

I could certainly live without the party list system though I'm not sure it is quite the devil's cauldron you suggest.

Incidentally your and my idea of unelectable scum may not be the same as that of at least some voters.Rascals get elected everywhere and I'm fairly sure Chalerm could get himself elected - and I don't mean by bribes or intimidation.

[Eric Loh]

I don't have a huge objection to a partially or at a stretch to a fully appointed Senate.Devil is in the detail of course.However the absolutely key point is that such an assembly can only check or delay decisions/legislation of the lower fully elected (one person one vote) house.Ultimately the elected house must prevail.This is an absolute sine qua non.However the Senate is not to be taken lightly and the government of the day must woprk with both houses.

With the sentiment expressed above, I hope that you will join me in disparaging the party list system. ALL MPs should be elected by an electorate, after facing their intense scrutiny and possibility of rejection (Oh NO! What a loss of face.)

The party list allows the wealthy to "buy" popular politicians and use their votes to appoint themselves, family, unelectable scum like Chalerm, and criminals facing prosecution to the highest offices of the land.

I could certainly live without the party list system though I'm not sure it is quite the devil's cauldron you suggest.

Incidentally your and my idea of unelectable scum may not be the same as that of at least some voters.Rascals get elected everywhere and I'm fairly sure Chalerm could get himself elected - and I don't mean by bribes or intimidation.

I see not much understanding the party list system. It serve a particular purpose as most party list candidates are potential ministers and the party list allows replacements without need for a bye election. For single seat MP, a bye election is necessary and it cost money and disruption to that particular constituency.

Party heavyweights will slot their winning chances in "safe" constituency which almost guarantee them electability. Same here and same everywhere in the world.

[billd766]

I don't have a huge objection to a partially or at a stretch to a fully appointed Senate.Devil is in the detail of course.However the absolutely key point is that such an assembly can only check or delay decisions/legislation of the lower fully elected (one person one vote) house.Ultimately the elected house must prevail.This is an absolute sine qua non.However the Senate is not to be taken lightly and the government of the day must woprk with both houses.

With the sentiment expressed above, I hope that you will join me in disparaging the party list system. ALL MPs should be elected by an electorate, after facing their intense scrutiny and possibility of rejection (Oh NO! What a loss of face.)

The party list allows the wealthy to "buy" popular politicians and use their votes to appoint themselves, family, unelectable scum like Chalerm, and criminals facing prosecution to the highest offices of the land.

I could certainly live without the party list system though I'm not sure it is quite the devil's cauldron you suggest.

Incidentally your and my idea of unelectable scum may not be the same as that of at least some voters.Rascals get elected everywhere and I'm fairly sure Chalerm could get himself elected - and I don't mean by bribes or intimidation.

I see not much understanding the party list system. It serve a particular purpose as most party list candidates are potential ministers and the party list allows replacements without need for a bye election. For single seat MP, a bye election is necessary and it cost money and disruption to that particular constituency.

Party heavyweights will slot their winning chances in "safe" constituency which almost guarantee them electability. Same here and same everywhere in the world.

So what. How many other countries have a party list system?

How many other countries can abuse the parliamentary system by having a person with NO political experience at all be elected as Prime Minister on her name only.

If anyone wants to be an MP, get out there and make yourself know to the people and stand for election within the community.

Abolish the party list MP quota completely and for ever.

Work out how many people in Thailand and how many MPs are needed and then elect the MPs on a pro rata of the per head of population. THAT is the fairest way to do it.

Some areas will have more MPs than now and some will have less and if an MP gets elected by their constituents on their family name there is no problem because they stood for election.

[Eric Loh]

I don't have a huge objection to a partially or at a stretch to a fully appointed Senate.Devil is in the detail of course.However the absolutely key point is that such an assembly can only check or delay decisions/legislation of the lower fully elected (one person one vote) house.Ultimately the elected house must prevail.This is an absolute sine qua non.However the Senate is not to be taken lightly and the government of the day must woprk with both houses.

With the sentiment expressed above, I hope that you will join me in disparaging the party list system. ALL MPs should be elected by an electorate, after facing their intense scrutiny and possibility of rejection (Oh NO! What a loss of face.)

The party list allows the wealthy to "buy" popular politicians and use their votes to appoint themselves, family, unelectable scum like Chalerm, and criminals facing prosecution to the highest offices of the land.

I could certainly live without the party list system though I'm not sure it is quite the devil's cauldron you suggest.

Incidentally your and my idea of unelectable scum may not be the same as that of at least some voters.Rascals get elected everywhere and I'm fairly sure Chalerm could get himself elected - and I don't mean by bribes or intimidation.

I see not much understanding the party list system. It serve a particular purpose as most party list candidates are potential ministers and the party list allows replacements without need for a bye election. For single seat MP, a bye election is necessary and it cost money and disruption to that particular constituency.

Party heavyweights will slot their winning chances in "safe" constituency which almost guarantee them electability. Same here and same everywhere in the world.

So what. How many other countries have a party list system?

How many other countries can abuse the parliamentary system by having a person with NO political experience at all be elected as Prime Minister on her name only.

If anyone wants to be an MP, get out there and make yourself know to the people and stand for election within the community.

Abolish the party list MP quota completely and for ever.

Work out how many people in Thailand and how many MPs are needed and then elect the MPs on a pro rata of the per head of population. THAT is the fairest way to do it.

Some areas will have more MPs than now and some will have less and if an MP gets elected by their constituents on their family name there is no problem because they stood for election.

What Parlimentary system have been abused in selecting the PM. Care you explain?

The Dem will be the party that will be more upset with lesser or abolishment of the party list. They did increase its percentage when they were in power.

[Thanet]

Another step in the rehabilitation of this lying hypocrite.

He'll be the next PM.

[halloween]

With the sentiment expressed above, I hope that you will join me in disparaging the party list system. ALL MPs should be elected by an electorate, after facing their intense scrutiny and possibility of rejection (Oh NO! What a loss of face.)

The party list allows the wealthy to "buy" popular politicians and use their votes to appoint themselves, family, unelectable scum like Chalerm, and criminals facing prosecution to the highest offices of the land.

I could certainly live without the party list system though I'm not sure it is quite the devil's cauldron you suggest.

Incidentally your and my idea of unelectable scum may not be the same as that of at least some voters.Rascals get elected everywhere and I'm fairly sure Chalerm could get himself elected - and I don't mean by bribes or intimidation.

I see not much understanding the party list system. It serve a particular purpose as most party list candidates are potential ministers and the party list allows replacements without need for a bye election. For single seat MP, a bye election is necessary and it cost money and disruption to that particular constituency.

Party heavyweights will slot their winning chances in "safe" constituency which almost guarantee them electability. Same here and same everywhere in the world.

As usual, the lack of understanding is on your part. Ministers can be appointed without being MPs (in Thailand). Most MPs that take a portfolio resign their seat because like the former PM they can't be bothered attending the job they were elected to. Allowing some party hack seat warmer to take their position until it is needed.

Party bigwigs might have safe seats, but that doesn't stop an electorate from throwing them out on their ear. TWO Oz PMs have been shown the door this way.

How do you defend a system that allows the rich to buy power, incompetent family members to be given positions of authority, and criminals to delay justice?

[Eric Loh]

With the sentiment expressed above, I hope that you will join me in disparaging the party list system. ALL MPs should be elected by an electorate, after facing their intense scrutiny and possibility of rejection (Oh NO! What a loss of face.)

The party list allows the wealthy to "buy" popular politicians and use their votes to appoint themselves, family, unelectable scum like Chalerm, and criminals facing prosecution to the highest offices of the land.

I could certainly live without the party list system though I'm not sure it is quite the devil's cauldron you suggest.

Incidentally your and my idea of unelectable scum may not be the same as that of at least some voters.Rascals get elected everywhere and I'm fairly sure Chalerm could get himself elected - and I don't mean by bribes or intimidation.

I see not much understanding the party list system. It serve a particular purpose as most party list candidates are potential ministers and the party list allows replacements without need for a bye election. For single seat MP, a bye election is necessary and it cost money and disruption to that particular constituency.

Party heavyweights will slot their winning chances in "safe" constituency which almost guarantee them electability. Same here and same everywhere in the world.

As usual, the lack of understanding is on your part. Ministers can be appointed without being MPs (in Thailand). Most MPs that take a portfolio resign their seat because like the former PM they can't be bothered attending the job they were elected to. Allowing some party hack seat warmer to take their position until it is needed.

Party bigwigs might have safe seats, but that doesn't stop an electorate from throwing them out on their ear. TWO Oz PMs have been shown the door this way.

How do you defend a system that allows the rich to buy power, incompetent family members to be given positions of authority, and criminals to delay justice?

Funny trying to bring out a no brainer to divert the subject. Of course, ministers can be appointed without being an MP. Who doesn't know that!! Rest is just your personal opinion and rant.

[billd766]

I don't have a huge objection to a partially or at a stretch to a fully appointed Senate.Devil is in the detail of course.However the absolutely key point is that such an assembly can only check or delay decisions/legislation of the lower fully elected (one person one vote) house.Ultimately the elected house must prevail.This is an absolute sine qua non.However the Senate is not to be taken lightly and the government of the day must woprk with both houses.

With the sentiment expressed above, I hope that you will join me in disparaging the party list system. ALL MPs should be elected by an electorate, after facing their intense scrutiny and possibility of rejection (Oh NO! What a loss of face.)

The party list allows the wealthy to "buy" popular politicians and use their votes to appoint themselves, family, unelectable scum like Chalerm, and criminals facing prosecution to the highest offices of the land.

I could certainly live without the party list system though I'm not sure it is quite the devil's cauldron you suggest.

Incidentally your and my idea of unelectable scum may not be the same as that of at least some voters.Rascals get elected everywhere and I'm fairly sure Chalerm could get himself elected - and I don't mean by bribes or intimidation.

I see not much understanding the party list system. It serve a particular purpose as most party list candidates are potential ministers and the party list allows replacements without need for a bye election. For single seat MP, a bye election is necessary and it cost money and disruption to that particular constituency.

Party heavyweights will slot their winning chances in "safe" constituency which almost guarantee them electability. Same here and same everywhere in the world.

So what. How many other countries have a party list system?

How many other countries can abuse the parliamentary system by having a person with NO political experience at all be elected as Prime Minister on her name only.

If anyone wants to be an MP, get out there and make yourself know to the people and stand for election within the community.

Abolish the party list MP quota completely and for ever.

Work out how many people in Thailand and how many MPs are needed and then elect the MPs on a pro rata of the per head of population. THAT is the fairest way to do it.

Some areas will have more MPs than now and some will have less and if an MP gets elected by their constituents on their family name there is no problem because they stood for election.

What Parlimentary system have been abused in selecting the PM. Care you explain?

The Dem will be the party that will be more upset with lesser or abolishment of the party list. They did increase its percentage when they were in power.

Nice try at obfuscation.

I assume that you agree with party list MPs where the political party owners pick and choose who they want with no reference to the voting public who actually have NO choice as to who may be foisted on them.

You could if you wish answer the question as to which other countries have party list MPs.

[tbthailand]

we shouldn't be so hard on poor Abhisit. He's led the party only since 2005 and losing elections has been a proud tradition in the party since 1992.

You make it sound like Thailand only had 2 parties and the Democrat opposition always get more than 50% of the vote.

Should all the parties that don't win get rid of their leader?

why would you think that? it's a multi-party system - no party needs 50% or more to 'win'.

quiz time -

the last time the anti-democrats won an election and formed a government, what % of the vote did they get?

Read it again! "YOU make it sound ...". I know it's a multi-party system.

The Democrats regularly get 1/3 of the vote. That's not too bad in a multi-party system.

The only reason TRT/PPP/PTP get as many votes as they do is because Thaksin bought many of the smaller parties into TRT. The people in the NE have been voting for the same families for decades, it's just that now they instead of being in the smaller parties they are in Thaksin's proxy parties.

well, I guess it just sounded like that to YOU

So the Thaksin parties have a long-standing, winning coalition. What should the Democrats do? Are they helpless in electoral politics?