The travel advice was actually British – the irony.
Yes, both factions revere the King, and this is partly built on the basis the monarchy, King No 5, I think, abolished slavery and at the same time as setting the people free initiated land reforms.
When I refer to the royalist snub – I am not saying the King himself - I am referring to those that using the positions “behind the throne” or as “part of the political and army power elite”.
The present reluctant (Thai) opposition party – the former govt installed by a coup - had the constitution changed, adopted a lot of the The Pheu Thai Party polcies and still couldn’t retain power.
Also from the AIT News this:
BANGKOK, 14 July 2011 (NNT) – The Pheu Thai Party has asked the Election Commission (EC) to certify MP status for all elected candidates urgently after the endorsement for many of its key members is pending.
Yes my opinion is not a royalist POV and comes in opart from family who are Thai and red shirt supporters and were in Thailand when the shit hit the fan last year - some 20 people got shot or were killed in one incident.
Looking into it further as I said initially the electoral commision only approved 350 seats leaving 150 up in the air which included the seat of the then Prime Minister elect - this was IMHO and in that of others a royalist snub.
From an article dated 28th July 2011 - at
Of immediate concern for Yingluck, her pro-Thaksin Puea Thai party and its four coalition allies had been whether the EC would endorse the minimum quorum of 95 percent of the 500 parliamentarians by the August 2 deadline set out in the country’s constitution. Puea Thai won an absolute majority with 265 seats and with its allies will control at least 299, if all those elected are endorsed.
Only yesterday did the EC endorse a final group of 94 poll winners, bringing the total to 496. If a quorum had not been confirmed, parliament could not have met and a constitutional and political crisis would have ensued.
Also recent travel advice is as follows
Following the national elections on 3 July the Thai Electoral Commission has until 2 August 2011 to confirm the election result. Although the elections took place without serious incident there remains some risk that political developments could lead to instability in the medium term.
Thailand has a history of military coups, (which seem to have royalist backing IMO) and the Nation is only just beginning to break away from that environment with this recent election. It is a country where each day they publicly play the National Anthem in the central parks in Bangkok and people have to stop what they are doing and be reverent otherwise they may be arrested. This is quite a subtle control of the people.
I did not say the red short movement was swiftly or violently put down or that the Thai government acted oppressively.
The info I got immediately after the election was in early July that there was a "refusal" by the Electoral Commission to acknowledge the Prime Minister and others and that further protests were likely in relation to the swearing in or recognition ceremony. I got this from a World News (WN) article.
I didn't follow it past this Mid July to see how it was resolved – but noted at the time out of 500 seats the commission only initially acknowledged only 350 of the results and this from memory did not include the incoming Prime Minister. I did also read somewhere that there were further red shirt protests were planed/likely as a result.
I am happy to stand corrected and note the delay to the swearing in/acknowledgement is now regarded as a Royal Snub to the incoming administration via the electroal commsision; there was potential fro matters to spiral out of hand.
The election took place on the 3rd July and it took until the 27th July for the electoral commission to acknowledge the result. The initial refusal was made formal on the 12th of July. I understand presently the opposition are challenging several marginal results and further by elections are likely.
The swearing in of Yingluck Shinawatra as Prime Minister did not take place until 9 Aug.
Looking at the process in Tgailand to actually form a govt requires 475 of the 500 seats to be certified by the electoral commision and I am not sure where the electroal commission are with this, if they have not reached that threshold then there is still potential for the result 3 July 2011 to be overturned.
I did not say anywhere that the red short movement was swiftly or violently put down or that the Thai government acted oppressively.
The info I got immediately after the election was in early July that there was a "refusal" by the Electoral Commission to acknowledge the Prime Minister and others and that further protests were likely in relation to the swearing in or recognition ceremony. I got this from a World News (WIN) article. I didn't follow it past this Mid July to see how it was resolved – but noted at the time out of 500 seats the commission only initially acknowledged only 350ish and this did not include the incoming Prime Minister. I did read somewhere that there were further red shirt protests were planed/likely as a result.
I am happy to stand corrected and note the delay to the swearing in/acknowledgement is now regarded as a Royal Snub to the incoming administration but had the potential to spiral out of hand. The election took place on the 3rd July and it took until the 27th July for the electoral commission to acknowledge the result and the initial refusal was made formal on the 12th of July. I understand the opposition are challenging several marginal results and further by elections are likely.
The swearing in did not take place until 9 Aug.
There are any number of tweaks that would make an enormous difference. You have mentioned many of them yourself.
You are suggesting DexterX act as a benevolent dictator, it is NZ's only real hope, No?
The Sharpeville massacre bears no relation to the present riots in London.
The London riots are not representative of a serious movement to overthrow the government and challenge the social order of the day – they are in the nature of opportunistic looting and rioting.
Riots/uprising that are politically based and take place in an environment with over arching oppression are swiftly and violently put down – as is the mode of oppression.
It is interesting to me that in Thailand an organiser for the red shirts was shot in the head at a rally or on the barricades and that although there has been a democratic election with a result that favoured the red shirts the govt/prime minister has not been sworn in.
I have no knowledge of the I am not qualified to comment on Brazil BOPE or Brazilian politics and my views here would be 30 years out of date. The only comment I can offer about the BOPE is that in Brazil the two movies based on its operation Elite squad and Elite Squad 2 have been box office successes and the video game also does well.
What the conservative coalition, particularly in London, is likely to be held to account for, in the electoral process, is the perception that the initial response was inadequate. It took time, too long for many, for the police and the govt to organise an adequate response.
Had the riots broken out in a more affluent suburb, more connected to the conservative coalition, would the initial response have been more adequate and contained the situation at the outset.
Conversely if there had been a left leaning coalition or Labour Govt and the London riots kicked of where they did would the response have been more swift as the government may have had a greater degree of connection with the community and more inclined to be responsive.
One New Years Eve about five or more years ago there was a giant brawl/riot in the Glen Innes shops and the police response was to let it wear itself out. The next day I looked for a news article and it was never reported.
It was not an idea - It is not the way Capitalism or any of the isms gets out of a recession - it is what happened and will happen regardless of the prevailing "ism".
In my role as a gnomic economist and commentator I consider a possible underlying message from Key is going to be, "You're own your own deal with it", the underlying message from the right. It would have been good if govts around the world had delivered that message to those banks and financial institutions that were responsible for caught up in the GFC.
In my view the value of hard real assets would have plummeted much faster than the value of wages and the paper assets would have burnt and this would have created a better basis for a sustainable recovery and future. It is not as if those hard assets disappear or cease to be able to do what they did before the “recession”.
Unsustainably high incomes leading to unrealistic expectations of constant growth, whilst at the same time being uncompetitive. It's a crisis they've been in for quite some time.
This is a bit broad and unconnected, what is or where would you set an unsustainably high income and who gets paid it.
In the context of Key and chums preparing to slash benefits in the name of reducing 'dependence
Deepening the recession is the only way to get out of the recession – refer GST increase. The slashing of benefits will help foster the recovery in the longer term, it will work the same way that throwing human sacrifices into the volcano, time and time again, made it rain and stopped the crops from failing. Eventually you make a human sacrifice and it rains.