News
Thailand’s 2023 Election Results See Pheu Thai, Move Forward Ahead in Vote Count

Thailand’s 2023 elections concluded with mix polls showing pro-democracy parties winning efforts to unseat a military-backed government that assumed power in 2014. The National Institute of Development Administration (Nida) predicted that the Pheu Thai party will win between 164 and 172 seats, the most of any party.
According to the Nida survey, the liberal Move Forward party came in second place with between 80 and 88 seats.
While it is too early to draw conclusions from the results, they suggest that no single party will capture a majority of the 500 lower house seats up for grabs. The Nida poll also predicted that the centrist Bhumjaithai party, which emerged as a kingmaker in the 2019 election, will win between 72 and 80 seats. According to the poll, the ruling military-backed Palang Pracharath party would receive between 53 and 61 seats.
At 6.30 p.m., the Election Commission is expected to begin publishing a partial tally of ballots.
According to a different exit poll conducted by Nation Group, the Pheu Thai party, which is associated to influential former PM Thaksin Shinawatra, received 32.6% of the constituency vote, while Move Forward received 29.4%, giving them a slender majority if those numbers maintain. The Nation Group poll reveals comparable outcomes for party-list voting.
At this early stage, opposition leaders believe they can tilt the scales and dethrone the military-backed coalition.
“Based on the numbers we’re seeing, Pheu Thai, Move Forward, and other opposition parties can form a coalition government,” Move Forward leader Pita Limjaroenrat said at a press conference after the elections closed, emphasising that no coalition talks had yet taken place. “The current opposition parties are the people’s choice.” We’ll stick to our guns. There is no need to include anyone else.”
Thaksin’s daughter and Pheu Thai’s front-runner for prime minister, Paetongtarn Shinawatra, asked fans to be patient and wait for the results. “I still have very high confidence in our victory,” she told reporters.
Earlier in the day, the secretary-general of the Election Commission informed reporters that voting was going smoothly, with no notable abnormalities. Around 52 million Thais were eligible to vote, and more than 90% of the approximately 2.3 million persons who registered for early voting did so last week.
Even a landslide victory for pro-democracy parties will not provide a clean road to power: under a 2017 constitution, the 250 military-appointed senators will vote alongside the 500 elected lower house members to choose the next prime minister.
Furthermore, some of the big parties had many candidates for the position. According to the electoral regulations, the Election Commission may take up to two months to confirm the members of the lower house. The united houses will then meet to elect the country’s new president.
A third poll, conducted before voting, by university Suan Dusit, projected Pheu Thai gaining as many as 246 seats, followed by Move Forward with 106.
Voters cast two ballots, one for first-past-the-post and one for proportional party representation.
After her Pheu Thai Party took a significant lead with the progressive opposition Move Forward Party in Sunday’s election, the daughter of Thailand’s former premier Thaksin Shinawatra stated the biggest vote-winner will lead the future government.
Paetongtarn “Ung Ing” Shinawatra, a Pheu Thai prime ministerial candidate, expressed her support for Move Forward after 50% of eligible votes were counted. “The voice of the people is most important,” she told journalists.
Ms Paetongtarn pleaded her fans to be patient, saying she had “very high confidence in our victory.”
Another candidate for prime minister, Srettha Thavisin, stated that Pheu Thai “will prioritise talks with pro-democratic parties.” Mr Srettha stated that his group had yet to speak with Move Forward.
Pro-democracy parties extended their lead in Sunday’s general election, with preliminary results indicating they are on track to unseat a military-backed administration that has reigned for nearly a decade.
On Sunday evening, the leader of the Move Forward Party (MFP) announced he intended to establish a coalition government with the Pheu Thai Party, allowing the former opposition bloc to take power.
According to MFP leader Pita Limjaroenrat, exit polls indicate that the MFP and Pheu Thai may have enough House members to form the next administration.
“This is a positive sign,” he stated. “It’s past time for Thailand to change.”
When asked when he planned to negotiate a prospective alliance with Pheu Thai, Mr Pita indicated he expected a discussion to begin about 10 or 11 p.m.
“A collaboration of (former) opposition parties is the ideal way to address the country’s challenges.” “We will change Thailand together,” stated the MFP’s leader.
Move Forward remarked on its Facebook page, “Thank you for the trust that the people have given us today.” From now on, the Move Forward Party will advance progressive policies in order to establish the Thailand that we all want as soon as feasible.”
Pita, a 42-year-old Harvard graduate, stated that the formation of a governing coalition would be subject to a memorandum of understanding and conditions.
He ruled out forming a coalition with Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha’s United Thai Nation (UTN) Party and Deputy Prime Minister Prawit Wongsuwon’s Palang Pracharath Party (PPRP).
However, the Move Forward leader did not rule out the possibility of the Bhumjaithai Party of Deputy Prime Minister and Public Health Minister Anutin Charnvirakul joining a coalition.
Meanwhile, Pheu Thai prime ministerial candidate Srettha Thavisin declared on Sunday night that his party, not the MFP, was the poll leader, and that he was convinced that the Thaksin-linked party will win.
He stated that Mr Pita had not yet called Pheu Thai, but that when the time came to negotiate alliances, Pheu Thai would prioritise talks with parties that held similar political views.
Mr Srettha also expressed dissatisfaction with Pheu Thai’s performance in Bangkok constituency elections.
MFP was expected to gain the most House seats in the capital.
Thailand decides: Vote count
The Election Commission (EC) began counting votes after the general election concluded at 5pm on Sunday.
As of 00.34am, the Move Forward Party had taken the lead in both the constituency and party-list races, followed by the Pheu Thai Party and the Bhumjaithai Party.

News
Trudeau’s Gun Grab Could Cost Taxpayers a Whopping $7 Billion

A recent report indicates that since Trudeau’s announcement of his gun buyback program four years ago, almost none of the banned firearms have been surrendered.
The federal government plans to purchase 2,063 firearm models from retailers following the enactment of Bill C-21, which amends various Acts and introduces certain consequential changes related to firearms. It was granted royal assent on December 15 of last year.
This ban immediately criminalized the actions of federally-licensed firearms owners regarding the purchase, sale, transportation, importation, exportation, or use of hundreds of thousands of rifles and shotguns that were previously legal.
The gun ban focused on what it termed ‘assault-style weapons,’ which are, in reality, traditional semi-automatic rifles and shotguns that have enjoyed popularity among hunters and sport shooters for over a century.
In May 2020, the federal government enacted an Order-in-Council that prohibited 1,500 types of “assault-style” firearms and outlined specific components of the newly banned firearms. Property owners must adhere to the law by October 2023.
Trudeau’s Buyback Hasn’t Happened
“In the announcement regarding the ban, the prime minister stated that the government would seize the prohibited firearms, assuring that their lawful owners would be ‘grandfathered’ or compensated fairly.” “That hasn’t happened,” criminologist Gary Mauser told Rebel News.
Mauser projected expenses ranging from $2.6 billion to $6.7 billion. The figure reflects the compensation costs amounting to $756 million, as outlined by the Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO).
“The projected expenses for gathering the illegal firearms are estimated to range from $1.6 billion to $7 billion.” “This range estimate increases to between $2.647 billion and $7 billion when compensation costs to owners are factored in,” Mauser stated.
Figures requested by Conservative MP Shannon Stubbs concerning firearms prohibited due to the May 1, 2020 Order In Council reveal that $72 million has been allocated to the firearm “buyback” program, yet not a single firearm has been confiscated to date.
In a recent revelation, Public Safety Canada disclosed that the federal government allocated a staggering $41,094,556, as prompted by an order paper question from Conservative Senator Don Plett last September, yet yielded no tangible outcomes.
An internal memo from late 2019 revealed that the Liberals projected their politically motivated harassment would incur a cost of $1.8 billion.
Enforcement efforts Questioned
By December 2023, estimates from TheGunBlog.ca indicate that the Liberals and RCMP had incurred or were responsible for approximately $30 million in personnel expenses related to the enforcement efforts. The union representing the police service previously stated that the effort to confiscate firearms is a “misdirected effort” aimed at ensuring public safety.
“This action diverts crucial personnel, resources, and funding from tackling the more pressing and escalating issue of criminal use of illegal firearms,” stated the National Police Federation (NPF).
The Canadian Sporting Arms & Ammunition Association (CSAAA), representing firearms retailers, has stated it will have “zero involvement” in the confiscation of these firearms. Even Canada Post held back from providing assistance due to safety concerns.
The consultant previously assessed that retailers are sitting on almost $1 billion worth of inventory that cannot be sold or returned to suppliers because of the Order-In-Council.
“Despite the ongoing confusion surrounding the ban, after four years, we ought to be able to address one crucial question.” Has the prohibition enhanced safety for Canadians? Mauser asks.
Illegally Obtained Firearms are the Problem
Statistics Canada reports a 10% increase in firearm-related violent crime between 2020 and 2022, rising from 12,614 incidents to 13,937 incidents. In that timeframe, the incidence of firearm-related violent crime increased from 33.7 incidents per 100,000 population in 2021 to 36.7 incidents the subsequent year.
“This marks the highest rate documented since the collection of comparable data began in 2009,” the criminologist explains.
Supplementary DataData indicates that firearm homicides have risen since 2020. “The issue lies not with lawfully-held firearms,” Mauser stated.
Firearms that have been banned under the Order-in-Council continue to be securely stored in the safes of their lawful owners. The individuals underwent a thorough vetting process by the RCMP and are subject to nightly monitoring to ensure there are no infractions that could pose a risk to public safety.
“The firearms involved in homicides were seldom legally owned weapons wielded by their rightful owners,” Mauser continues. The number of offenses linked to organized crime has surged from 4,810 in 2016 to a staggering 13,056 in 2020.
“If those in power … aim to diminish crime and enhance public safety, they ought to implement strategies that effectively focus on offenders and utilize our limited tax resources judiciously to reach these objectives,” he stated.
Related News:
Millennials in Canada Have Turned their Backs on Justin Trudeau
Millennials in Canada Have Turned their Backs on Justin Trudeau
News
Google’s Search Dominance Is Unwinding, But Still Accounting 48% Search Revenue

Google is so closely associated with its key product that its name is a verb that signifies “search.” However, Google’s dominance in that sector is dwindling.
According to eMarketer, Google will lose control of the US search industry for the first time in decades next year.
Google will remain the dominant search player, accounting for 48% of American search advertising revenue. And, remarkably, Google is still increasing its sales in the field, despite being the dominating player in search since the early days of the George W. Bush administration. However, Amazon is growing at a quicker rate.
Google’s Search Dominance Is Unwinding
Amazon will hold over a quarter of US search ad dollars next year, rising to 27% by 2026, while Google will fall even more, according to eMarketer.
The Wall Street Journal was first to report on the forecast.
Lest you think you’ll have to switch to Bing or Yahoo, this isn’t the end of Google or anything really near.
Google is the fourth-most valued public firm in the world. Its market worth is $2.1 trillion, trailing just Apple, Microsoft, and the AI chip darling Nvidia. It also maintains its dominance in other industries, such as display advertisements, where it dominates alongside Facebook’s parent firm Meta, and video ads on YouTube.
To put those “other” firms in context, each is worth more than Delta Air Lines’ total market value. So, yeah, Google is not going anywhere.
Nonetheless, Google faces numerous dangers to its operations, particularly from antitrust regulators.
On Monday, a federal judge in San Francisco ruled that Google must open up its Google Play Store to competitors, dealing a significant blow to the firm in its long-running battle with Fortnite creator Epic Games. Google announced that it would appeal the verdict.
In August, a federal judge ruled that Google has an illegal monopoly on search. That verdict could lead to the dissolution of the company’s search operation. Another antitrust lawsuit filed last month accuses Google of abusing its dominance in the online advertising business.
Meanwhile, European regulators have compelled Google to follow tough new standards, which have resulted in multiple $1 billion-plus fines.

Pixa Bay
Google’s Search Dominance Is Unwinding
On top of that, the marketplace is becoming more difficult on its own.
TikTok, the fastest-growing social network, is expanding into the search market. And Amazon has accomplished something few other digital titans have done to date: it has established a habit.
When you want to buy anything, you usually go to Amazon, not Google. Amazon then buys adverts to push companies’ products to the top of your search results, increasing sales and earning Amazon a greater portion of the revenue. According to eMarketer, it is expected to generate $27.8 billion in search revenue in the United States next year, trailing only Google’s $62.9 billion total.
And then there’s AI, the technology that (supposedly) will change everything.
Why search in stilted language for “kendall jenner why bad bunny breakup” or “police moving violation driver rights no stop sign” when you can just ask OpenAI’s ChatGPT, “What’s going on with Kendall Jenner and Bad Bunny?” in “I need help fighting a moving violation involving a stop sign that wasn’t visible.” Google is working on exactly this technology with its Gemini product, but its success is far from guaranteed, especially with Apple collaborating with OpenAI and other businesses rapidly joining the market.
A Google spokeswoman referred to a blog post from last week in which the company unveiled ads in its AI overviews (the AI-generated text that appears at the top of search results). It’s Google’s way of expressing its ability to profit on a changing marketplace while retaining its business, even as its consumers steadily transition to ask-and-answer AI and away from search.
Google has long used a single catchphrase to defend itself against opponents who claim it is a monopoly abusing its power: competition is only a click away. Until recently, that seemed comically obtuse. Really? We are going to switch to Bing? Or Duck Duck Go? Give me a break.
But today, it feels more like reality.
Google is in no danger of disappearing. However, every highly dominating company faces some type of reckoning over time. GE, a Dow mainstay for more than a century, was broken up last year and is now a shell of its previous dominance. Sears declared bankruptcy in 2022 and is virtually out of business. US Steel, long the foundation of American manufacturing, is attempting to sell itself to a Japanese corporation.
SOURCE | CNN
News
The Supreme Court Turns Down Biden’s Government Appeal in a Texas Emergency Abortion Matter.

(VOR News) – A ruling that prohibits emergency abortions that contravene the Supreme Court law in the state of Texas, which has one of the most stringent abortion restrictions in the country, has been upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States. The United States Supreme Court upheld this decision.
The justices did not provide any specifics regarding the underlying reasons for their decision to uphold an order from a lower court that declared hospitals cannot be legally obligated to administer abortions if doing so would violate the law in the state of Texas.
Institutions are not required to perform abortions, as stipulated in the decree. The common populace did not investigate any opposing viewpoints. The decision was made just weeks before a presidential election that brought abortion to the forefront of the political agenda.
This decision follows the 2022 Supreme Court ruling that ended abortion nationwide.
In response to a request from the administration of Vice President Joe Biden to overturn the lower court’s decision, the justices expressed their disapproval.
The government contends that hospitals are obligated to perform abortions in compliance with federal legislation when the health or life of an expectant patient is in an exceedingly precarious condition.
This is the case in regions where the procedure is prohibited. The difficulty hospitals in Texas and other states are experiencing in determining whether or not routine care could be in violation of stringent state laws that prohibit abortion has resulted in an increase in the number of complaints concerning pregnant women who are experiencing medical distress being turned away from emergency rooms.
The administration cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in a case that bore a striking resemblance to the one that was presented to it in Idaho at the beginning of the year. The justices took a limited decision in that case to allow the continuation of emergency abortions without interruption while a lawsuit was still being heard.
In contrast, Texas has been a vocal proponent of the injunction’s continued enforcement. Texas has argued that its circumstances are distinct from those of Idaho, as the state does have an exemption for situations that pose a significant hazard to the health of an expectant patient.
According to the state, the discrepancy is the result of this exemption. The state of Idaho had a provision that safeguarded a woman’s life when the issue was first broached; however, it did not include protection for her health.
Certified medical practitioners are not obligated to wait until a woman’s life is in imminent peril before they are legally permitted to perform an abortion, as determined by the state supreme court.
The state of Texas highlighted this to the Supreme Court.
Nevertheless, medical professionals have criticized the Texas statute as being perilously ambiguous, and a medical board has declined to provide a list of all the disorders that are eligible for an exception. Furthermore, the statute has been criticized for its hazardous ambiguity.
For an extended period, termination of pregnancies has been a standard procedure in medical treatment for individuals who have been experiencing significant issues. It is implemented in this manner to prevent catastrophic outcomes, such as sepsis, organ failure, and other severe scenarios.
Nevertheless, medical professionals and hospitals in Texas and other states with strict abortion laws have noted that it is uncertain whether or not these terminations could be in violation of abortion prohibitions that include the possibility of a prison sentence. This is the case in regions where abortion prohibitions are exceedingly restrictive.
Following the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, which resulted in restrictions on the rights of women to have abortions in several Republican-ruled states, the Texas case was revisited in 2022.
As per the orders that were disclosed by the administration of Vice President Joe Biden, hospitals are still required to provide abortions in cases that are classified as dire emergency.
As stipulated in a piece of health care legislation, the majority of hospitals are obligated to provide medical assistance to patients who are experiencing medical distress. This is in accordance with the law.
The state of Texas maintained that hospitals should not be obligated to provide abortions throughout the litigation, as doing so would violate the state’s constitutional prohibition on abortions. In its January judgment, the 5th United States Circuit Court of Appeals concurred with the state and acknowledged that the administration had exceeded its authority.
SOURCE: AP
SEE ALSO:
Could Last-Minute Surprises Derail Kamala Harris’ Campaign? “Nostradamus” Explains the US Poll.
-
News3 years ago
Let’s Know About Ultra High Net Worth Individual
-
Entertainment2 years ago
Mabelle Prior: The Voice of Hope, Resilience, and Diversity Inspiring Generations
-
Health3 years ago
How Much Ivermectin Should You Take?
-
Tech2 years ago
Top Forex Brokers of 2023: Reviews and Analysis for Successful Trading
-
Lifestyles3 years ago
Aries Soulmate Signs
-
Movies2 years ago
What Should I Do If Disney Plus Keeps Logging Me Out of TV?
-
Health3 years ago
Can I Buy Ivermectin Without A Prescription in the USA?
-
Learning2 years ago
Virtual Numbers: What Are They For?