The stated postition of each is below:

1. Chat Thai Pattana, Newin & Co of Bhum Jai, and the 5 other smaller parties. Banharn is the main driving force, both publicly and privately in pushing to amend two provisions of the constitution (Article 190 in relation to what treaties need parliamentary approval and Article 94 to moving from a multi-seat constituency system to single-seat constituency).* Actually, if you read and hear what Banharn says, he does not appear happy with the Democrats and the rage beneath the surface does manifest  publicly at times. However, other smaller parties say they will not abandon the Democrats if the Dems don’t vote for the amendments. You can see how serious, well at least to the point of making veiled threats, Banharn is from this Bangkok Post report:

Banharn Silpa-archa, chief adviser to the Chart Thai Pattana Party, a coalition member, recently threatened to switch his support to the opposition Puea Thai Party if progress was not made on charter reform.

After the Democrat MPs voted to not to support as The Nation reports:

The Democrat decision to reject the charter rewrite has triggered the countdown to dissolve the House, Somsak Prissanananthakul of Chart Thai Pattana Party said on Wednesday.

“Even though the prime minister has the sole discretion on the House dissolution, the countdown for government’s life has begun,” he said.
…
“Watch closely. Changes are inevitable and I am not saying this as a bargaining chip,” he said.
….
He said the upcoming censure debate is a separate issue which should not be linked to the charter debate.

Bhum Jai Thai deputy leader Boonjong Wongtrairat voiced disappointment at the Democrat decision, saying his party had never gone back on its pledges.

Boonjong said the Democrats did not live up to their pledge to push for charter amendments, which they gave in exchange for his party’s support for the coalition alliance.

He added his party would await for the Democrats to formally notify their decision before deciding whether to cast a free vote in the censure debate.

BP: So Chat Thai Pattana will not publicly link the censure debate to the charter issue, but some Democrat MPs are concerned that coalition MPs will withhold support for Democrat Bills. Then what? More on the “betrayal” theme from the Bangkok Post:

Banharn Silpa-archa was said to be “very disappointed” at the Democrats’ decision. The adviser to the Chart Thai Pattana leader refused to budge from the amendment push, a Chart Thai Pattana source said.

“The Democrats’ decision is proof that they are insincere,” the source quoted Mr Banharn as saying.

The coalition parties have said changing the constitution was part of the deal in exchange for their support to form a government.

BP: So what do the coalition MPs do now?

2. Abhisit and the Democrats. The Democrats agree on amending Article 190,  but even Suthep admits the Democrats prefer not to amend Article 194 and keep the mutli-seat constituency. The Democrats met over the weekend and the rank-and-file did not come to a final conclusion. A decision was meant to be made on Sunday, then Monday, and now that has been delayed until yesterday. There are also deep splits in the Democrats, particularly among some of the old guard, as the Bangkok Post reports:

Democrat adviser Banyat Bantadtan has been a vocal opponent of the move. And the coalition parties are worried that if Democrat MPs are allowed to have a free House vote on the matter, then the majority will oppose the proposed amendments.

The Democrats have been warned by their partners that allowing a free vote would cause serious political conflicts within the government.

Of course then yesterday, the Democrat party room then rejected the amendements as the Bangkok Post reports:

Democrat MPs voted 82 to 48 in a closed-door meeting not to join the five other parties in the government in changing the constitution.
…
But Mr Abhisit stood firm yesterday, telling party members the pressure was unacceptable. He banned Democrat MPs from having a free vote when the issue goes to the parliament.

BP:  Constitutionally, he cannot ban Democrat MPs from voting for the bill, but will any Democrat MPs not vote for? More on the numbers later. Abhisit disagrees with the coalition party statements that there was ever a quid-pro-quo as the Bangkok Post reports:

He [Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva] insisted the Democrats had not broken any promises to their coalition partners as the stand on multiple-MP constituencies was made known during the formation of the government.

The party’s decision not to join its partners did not come easily, however.

Deputy Prime Minister and Democrat secretary-general Suthep Thaugsuban made a last-ditch bid to convince members to support the amendment in order to prolong the life of the government and prevent a premature dissolution of the House, party sources said.

BP: The Democrats have rolled their device.

3. PAD/New Politics Party: While Sondhi L had earlier signalled that the PAD had softened their previous position of no amendments whatsover, but Sondhi L was vague and was speaking generally and not specifically about the proposed amendments. Other statements from the PAD suggest they oppose the proposed amendments to Article 94 and 190.The Bangkok Post:

New Politics Party spokesman Samran Rodpetch urged the Democrats not to give in to demands to amend the charter.

Mr Samran confirmed his party’s opposition to the proposed charter changes. He said there was a hidden agenda behind the changes that could divide the nation.

The PAD may not just merely not support the amendments they may take to the streets to oppose the amendments as the Bangkok Post reports:

Meanwhile, the People’s Alliance for Democracy, which has formed the New Politics Party as its political wing, has threatened mass street protests if a motion to amend the 2007 constitution is submitted to parliament.

The PAD would definitely oppose charter amendment, said Chamlong Srimuang, a PAD leader.

But the alliance would wait and see how the current situation played out before deciding whether or not it would take to the streets.

”If those coalition partners are so disappointed in the Democrat Party for not joining their move to amend the charter, and consequently pull their support, then the [Democrat] party should opt to form the government with a minority of House votes,” said Maj Gen Chamlong. ”[The prime minister] doesn’t have to dissolve the House. We the people will step in to support the government.”

He said the coalition members who were pressuring the Democrats to support reform intended to ”stir up turmoil”.

Another PAD leader Somkiat Pongpaibul, also a Democrat MP, said amending the constitution would result in banned politicians being allowed to resume active roles in politics.

Senator Paiboon Nititawan, who belongs to a group of 40 senators linked to the PAD, said the faction was also considering opposing attempts to amend the constitution.

BP: This seems fairly clear and is a political problem for the Democrats if the Democrats support the amendments (the reason is that the mostly like source of New Politics Party voters will be Democrat voters so the Democrats may bleed some support if the party takes a position of voting for the amendments)

4. Puea Thai: Last year, they seemingly agreed on amending all six provisions, but then decided to push even further and revert back to the 1997 constitution only. Although, Banharn of Thai Pattana has hinted on joining hands with Puea Thai to amend the necessary provisions, as recently as a few weeks ago, Chalerm of Puea Thai has said “no” and only proceeding with returning to the 1997 constitution. However, it is clear from last year and this year that the party is split on this issue as Banaharn certainly seems to be negotiating with Puea Thai on this issue as multiple sources have reported. Bangkok Post:

Puea Thai MP for Nakhon Phanom and deputy opposition chief whip Phaijit Sriworakhan said the party had agreed to support the move even though it would continue to campaign for a return to the 1997 constitution.

Mr Phaijit said even though only two sections of the charter would be amended, it was another step towards democracy. He commended Mr Banharn for leading the charter change.

Mr Banharn, as a seasoned politician, must have seen which way the wind was blowing before deciding to make the move, he said.

However, Mr Phaijit said it was still undecided whether Puea Thai MPs would join the coalition parties in voting for the proposed amendments as they would be given a free vote on the issue.

A source from Puea Thai said Mr Banharn last week asked key figures of the party, including former prime minister Somchai Wongsawat and Sompong Amornwiwat, to allow the free vote.

BP: So will Puea Thai stick to their position of allowing a free vote?

Will have a look at the numbers later….

*The rationale on the need to move to single seat constituencies is that it would be cheaper and better for the small parties as the Bangkok Post reports:

“If it changes to single-seat constituencies, a lot can be saved,” said  Banharn Silpa-archa, de facto leader of Chart Thai Pattana.

He was understood to be referring to election campaign spending.

The proposed change to Section 94 deals with the competitiveness of small parties against large ones such as the Democrats and Puea Thai in the next general election.

A small, single-seat constituency covers fewer districts so it should be easy for small parties to canvass for votes and control their spending.

A larger, multi-seat constituency covering six or seven districts is too big a challenge for them because campaigning in such a large area would be too costly.