Gwelch i'n meddwl i'r cyngor. Mae'n amddai Catherine Meenan ac yn ymddangos i'ch gweithio y sefyllfa yma. Mae'n cyfeirio i'r profi mlynedd yma i'r gyflawn. Mae'n meddwl i'r Prifysgol Llyfrgell yn y Prifysgol Llyfrgell yn 2005. Mae'n gweithio i'r gyflawn i'r Gwelch i'r Gwelch i'r Std. Antonis. Mae'n meddwl i'r cyfrifysgol i'r Oxford. Mae'n meddwl i'r cyfrifysgol i'r gwaith ar y llwyddon yma. Mae hefyd yn ymddangas o fynd i yw'r ysgol. Rwyf ynddo i gael ar y ddechrau gynllunio gyda postog wedi bod Cymru atdarnol, i'r Penffordd Llywodraeth i Gweithgen Cymru i'r Prifysgol F sleidwydiaeth, a oedd cyhoeddo ar y Cyfrannwyr. Erbyn dweud, mae'n bwysig ddetechrau i'r Cymru ar y ddechrau. Gwydwch gweith基llin gyda'r llyffyr hwnnw i'r llineid. Pes passengers, maen nhw'n gweithio hynny, If I could just remind you to turn your mobile phones off or to silent keys. First of all I will speak for the normal 20-25 minutes and then I'll open the floor which will be on the record and then I'll open the floor for questions and answers and I'll ask you to identify yourselves before you pose your question. So either you come to listen to us or I'm going to ask for a similar to speak. Thank you. No I don't think you need that if that will pick you up. OK, but I'll get up if I may. OK, of course. Thank you very much. Of course my kind and generous hosts could not have known this. But you might say that as of last week we have an answer to the question how to fight populists that is much more straightforward, though not necessarily less expensive than me giving you a half hour lecture. As we all know by now all you have to do is get hold of a video shot on a beautiful Spanish island and that's how you really fight populists. But in case you don't happen to have such a video, here are some alternative suggestions. If I may I'll start with a few words of conceptual ground clearing. What are we talking about when we are talking about populism? As you all know our era has seen an absolutely inflationary use of the word populism. All kinds of political actors on the right but of course also on the left have been labeled as populists. Even poor Emmanuel Macron during the presidential elections in France in 2017 some of you may remember was at one point called a populist. It was said that he was a populist of the extreme center. Whatever the hell that exactly was supposed to have meant. Moreover, as you also all know commentary these days is dominated by one particular image which allegedly holds the key to understanding our era. I'm of course talking about the metaphor of the allegedly unstoppable wave of populism or is Nigel Farage for whom apparently the image of the wave was of insufficient world historical significance given his own role put it the tsunami of populism that to stick with the image with a metaphor is now going to wash away the elites and the establishments everywhere. I actually find this a deeply misleading image and I'm happy to tell you more about why I think that in the question and answer if you like. But for now just a few words on the question what exactly is populism? Well the conventional wisdom is of course that populists are those who as the cliched formulation has it criticize elites are angry at the establishment etc. Seems very obvious but when you think about it it's actually a very curious thought. I think up until recently any old civics textbook would have told you that keeping an eye on the powerful. Be it in politics, be it in the economy, be it God forbid at universities and in culture is actually a sign of good democratic engagement. And come the second decade of the 21st century we're told day and night that anybody who actually does that is a populist who may somehow pose a danger for democracy. Clearly it cannot be as simple as that. It is true, it is true that when populists are in opposition they criticize governments and other parties but above all they do something else. In one way or another they always claim that they and only they represent what populists frequently call the real people in quotation marks or also the silent majority. You might say that's not obviously so bad or dangerous, that's not the same as let's say racism or a fanatical hatred of European integration. And yet and yet this claiming of a monopoly of representing the people always does have in my view two pernicious consequences for democracy. First and rather obviously populists are going to claim that all other contenders for power are fundamentally illegitimate. This is never just a matter of disagreeing about policies or even values which after all is completely normal ideally even productive in a democracy. No in a sense populists always immediately make it entirely personal and entirely moral. The problem is always immediately that the others are simply corrupt or to coin a phrase crooked characters. Secondly and less obviously I think populists are also going to claim that all those citizens, all those among the people themselves if you like who do not share their ultimately symbolic understanding of the allegedly real people and who therefore logically also don't support the populist politically there with all those citizens you can put into doubt whether they truly belong to the people to begin with. Let me maybe illustrate this I think less obvious point with two brief examples from contemporary history. Of course you all remember the night of Brexit at the end of which Nigel Farage famously said that this had been as he put it a victory for real people implying of course that the 48% who wanted to stay inside the European Union well on one level aren't quite real. Do not properly belong to the British or maybe in the case of Farage even specifically the English people. If you permit one example from the other side of the Atlantic in May 2016 then candidate Trump in a speech which went virtually unreported given all the other interesting things that candidate Trump was saying at the time went on record with the following statement I'm quoting from memory. Trump said the most important thing is the unification of the people and all the other people don't mean anything. I hope you can see where this is going the important thing about populism is not anti elitism any of us can criticize the powerful doesn't mean we're right but it certainly doesn't mean that we somehow are dangerous for democracy. The important and dangerous thing for democracy about populism is for short anti pluralism the tendency of populists always to exclude others obviously at the level of party politics less obviously at the level of the people themselves where essentially the populist decides who truly belongs and who doesn't. Whether you happen to have an American a Hungarian an Irish passport that doesn't really enter the issue. If I may let me draw out one implication of this account that maybe is worth stressing in the connection of upcoming and more generally elections. If you find anything plausible about what I've been trying to make plausible to you so far you may say but wait a minute what about what about populist parties that lose elections. Don't they have a massive problem explaining to their followers how on the one hand they are the only authentic representatives of the people and on the other hand they're not in power that doesn't go together. True but this I believe is also the reason why quite often I'm not saying always but quite often populist who lose will actually put elections themselves into doubt all to put it more bluntly allege that things have been rigged that there has been fraud. Why because according to their logic if the silent majority could express itself if it weren't silent they would always already be in power. So if they don't win in one way or another they always suggest that we should take another look and perhaps all you find is that we're not really talking about the silent majority but about a silenced majority. Somebody behind the scenes must have been manipulating things such that the real people couldn't express themselves. You all remember November 2016 when Trump when he was asked whether he would accept Hillary Clinton's victory said well I'll tell you at the time. Everybody understood of course what that really meant. According to some surveys 70% of Trump supporters said if she wins it must have been rigged. And in terms of somebody who actually lost an election recently we've seen the same dynamic in Turkey just a couple of weeks ago where President Erdogan of course said there must have been voting fraud because we couldn't possibly we couldn't possibly lose. Now I think that's worth underlining because what it shows is that even when populists don't gain power they might end up damaging a democratic political culture. Of course I'm not suggesting that we're not allowed to criticize our election systems especially in the United States. There's plenty to criticize but there's a difference between somebody who says there's a problem with campaign finance, there's a problem with gerrymandering etc etc. And somebody by contrast who ends up saying our system is rotten and rigged because I didn't win. The latter is not a democratic argument but it basically shows distrust of the institutions amongst citizens in a way that probably is going to end up being damaging for democracy. So what to do? I fear that especially if you bring people over from the US the expectation might be ok give us something positive, uplifting, constructive right away. Sorry, no. I'm going to first talk about three things that one I think shouldn't do. And I feel that it's appropriate to do that because these are approaches to populism strategies if you like or fighting populism which have been very prevalent in Europe in the last couple of years. And I think it might be worth spending a few minutes on what we've learned from actors who went for these strategies and who for the most part failed. And then I promise I'll give you something more positive and constructive at the very end. First strategy that I think is worth revisiting is a tendency to react especially to the rise of populist actors by basically trying to exclude them completely. Many of you will remember that this for instance was a typical approach in Germany when the alternative for Germany was first coming up. Other politicians said I'm not even going to talk to them, if they're invited on television I'm not going to appear alongside them etc etc. Completely, completely misguided. Both on a if you like strategic level but maybe less obviously also on a if you like normative level by which I mean looked at from the point of view of democratic theory. On the strategic level wrong and misguided because through this total exclusion you were actually doing populist an enormous favour. You are confirming the very narrative which populists are always serving up to their followers. The elites never listen, they don't take you seriously, they're so worried that we are the only ones to talk about certain taboo issues and that's why they won't even confront us and so on. So you couldn't you couldn't do better in terms of actually validating what they have been telling their own supporters all along. But on a if you like more normative level there's a perhaps less obvious problem because especially when these parties have representation in parliament when they actually get in.  For these populist actors. And I think fateful mistake has often been that observers and politicians start to assume that everybody who votes for a populist party is themselves somehow a populist which from my point of view means they must somehow be anti pluralist. But for the most part we don't know that. I mean forgive the cliched example but it's not inconceivable to have somebody in France say look I really care about Marine Le Pen says about all the other parties. Seems all very exaggerated but her industrial policies for the north of France that's you know the thing that I absolutely love and that's why I voted for her. Of course everybody forever now has been beating up on Hillary Clinton because of one word deplorables. But from my point of view that wasn't the worst because with all due respect a lot of what President Trump and a fair amount of his followers have been saying is deplorable. I think for me the scandalous word that Clinton used in that infamous speech was another one. It was the word irredeemable. It basically said there are citizens that we can simply forget about no matter what we say no matter how we try to engage them they are simply lost forever. That ladies and gentlemen I think is a profoundly undemocratic thought. Yes empirically we know how how seldomly citizens actually really fundamentally change their views but to from the get go say we're not even going to try makes no sense. These are lost for democracy these are anti pluralist these are populist voters profoundly wrong. What we've of course also seen is the second strategy is a typical move from one extreme to the other. So after years of telling us that populist demagogues that they're always lying they're always making promises to the people which cannot be kept etc. All of a sudden many politicians turn around and start saying things like well you know of course we don't really like what they're saying but maybe they know something about what's going on deep down in society that the rest of us haven't quite figured out. Which then practically often comes down to something like well if we can't run from them we'll run after them or put even more pointedly so called mainstream politicians start to bet on a somewhat paradoxical sounding strategy of destruction through imitation. Again this for the most part seems bound to fail both on a strategic level but is also misguided on the normative level. Strategically I'm not telling you anything very new all those politicians who started to run after let's say far right populists strangely found that they could never catch them.  He could somehow never catch Marine Le Pen. But what happened of course and this goes to the more normative level is that eventually if mainstream parties engage in this let's call it what it is opportunism a whole political spectrum can in this as in this case shift to the right. In a way that arguably was never really democratically authorized by many people because they thought they were just voting for their usual mainstream parties. They didn't necessarily want the kinds of outcomes on let's say refugees in immigration which by now we see in countries like Denmark and the Netherlands which as you know have shifted massively to the right. So much so there in fact even the social democrats in Denmark are now trying to run after far right populists. It's unlikely to work. We've seen so many times that citizens end up saying look you know mainstream parties told us for years that this was totally unacceptable to have these views. Now they're basically telling us the same thing. You know what the original is still on offer. Why should I vote for the pale copy. So again a problem on a strategic and the normative level. Last thing that is a last rather negative I will bother you with is another. I think very typical reaction we've seen in Europe but also in other parts of the world and in certain ways it's probably the most tempting one. Especially liberals liberals let's say in the widest sense have often said something like look the populist really are those who have these horrendously simplistic ideas about policy. They're always lying so what does that mean. That means that our side has rationality has the truth. And as you know it's not just politicians who say these things.  Strangely the truth is always 40% cheaper on any given on any given any given day. Especially of course in in in in being out being face to face with a president who I've lost count you probably to 2000 times that he's light by now whatever. It's very tempting to say they're always lying and we have the truth. But what's the likely outcome of the strategy. Well it's a position that for shorthand you might call a certain kind of technocracy the kind of person who ends up saying. There's a singularly irrational response to certain policy challenges to our political environment with the implication that if you happen to disagree with that. Let's say again in the widest sense liberal politician. Well you've revealed yourself to be probably unreasonable or irrational in a certain way. Problem here is that politicians who drive this line again actually do populist a massive favor. Because the more they insist on this technocratic stance the more they pave the way for populists to then say what you mean democracy without choices. What you mean democracy without the people coming into it and playing a role. And what then has often enough happened is that populists might do relatively well at the polls. If they do so technocrats are going to become even more wary of the people and conclude that look you know. The people going to bring crazy demagogues to power ideally even less decision making power for the people which in turn as I hope for you can see is going to reinforce the populist. So a kind of vicious circle gets going and the seeming extremes that oppose each other technocracy rationality truth and populism alleged irrationality. They actually keep reinforcing each other in a certain way. Moreover more over even though it looks like here are two extremes opposed to each other populism and technocracy actually share one characteristic. Because ultimately they're both forms of anti pluralism the technocrat says only one rational solution. If you don't agree with me you're irrational no need for debate no need for parliaments to you know come into the picture here etc. Populist says there's only one authentic will of the people and by the way only I know it debates exchange of arguments parliaments don't have to come into the picture. This is obviously an exaggeration of sorts but I would claim that many Europeans might recognize this specific picture especially but not only from the height of the euro crisis. A sort of fateful vicious circle where populism and technocracy end up reinforcing each other. And I partly want to make an underline this point because the person who's of course usually presented as the great saviour from populism in our era Emmanuel Macron with all your respect might sometimes be in danger of precisely going down this road. He precisely might go for what you might call a second coming of the third way. A sort of attitude that says there is a singularly reasonable center which by the way of course was also the reason why he could say people from the right and the left can join the movement. I don't care where you're coming from you just have to be reasonable. And for a while the image that in a sense French party politics presented was close enough to what he was claiming. There was that center and there were the crazy seemingly crazy extremes of Mélenchon and Le Pen. But I think this is the wrong strategy. I think you're more likely in the long run to encourage populism if you go for this in a sense shortcut of saying we are uniquely reasonable. You just have to agree with us as opposed to for instance justifying your policies in different ways mobilizing for your policies in different ways and so on. All right. Finally, finally, finally something more constructive. What should politicians? Let's stick with them for a second. We can also talk about if you like what citizens at large can do later on. But let's stick with politicians for the moment. What should they do? Well, as hopefully has become clear, there is no alternative to engaging with populist politicians. But talking with them doesn't have to mean talking like them. It doesn't have to mean that you accept the way they frame problems. It doesn't have to mean that you basically always talk about the issues that they own and that they want to talk about. So far so obvious. Maybe less obvious is the point that when you then find yourself, let's say in a debate, it's important on the one hand to admit that there are plenty of policy issues which we can reasonably disagree about in a democracy. Let's take a typical example in this context. There are many reasonable though from my point of view not always attractive positions one can hold on refugee policy and immigration. I think it's not plausible to say that somebody who wants to radically reduce immigration is in of itself undemocratic or beyond the pale of democratic discourse. But if within a debate a populist specifically reveals themselves as a populist, it's absolutely crucial that other politicians mark a red line. Let me give you one example. If a populist for instance says well or suggests well there is a secret plan hatched by Angela Merkel that wants to replace the German folk with Syrians, it's pretty important that other politicians and journalists and citizens don't treat this as just another contribution to the refugee immigration debate. Of course drawing that red line is not going to practically make the populist recoil and say oh sorry I didn't realize I was uttering a conspiracy theory imported from France, the great replacement theory. But it's not about him and by the way as I'm sure many of you know this is a real world example, it's not about him. It's about citizens seeing these sorts of scenes and the hope and maybe you might say it's a pious hope of a democratic theorist is that there's still enough citizens who will say yeah we kind of agree on some of the policy issues. But you know what we don't really want to be in the same boat with people who spin conspiracy theories or in the German context who tell us that the democracy we live in now is pretty much the equivalent of the late German Democratic Republic, i.e. a pretty obvious dictatorship. That I think is the constructive lesson and I think one thing we found is that even though it seems very straightforward it's incredibly difficult to do. I think it really takes a sense of judgment, of timing, of finding the right tone, the things that ideally one would expect from a professional politician to do this well and to have the desired effects. There's much more to be said about obviously many other issues in this context, I haven't even talked about policy which probably is a mortal sin in the context of a think tank. I haven't said anything about what citizens themselves can do which is probably also a moral sin if you say that you're a democratic theorist, god forbid. But I hope we can do some of these things in our discussion now. Thank you.


So let's go ahead and go to Lucidchart. And I'm going to, I want to sign in. So you sign up, you can basically use my Gmail account. You can link directly to your Gmail account and just verify and you go in there, okay? So once in here, I'm going to create a new here, a new chart. So new Lucidchart, you can start with the blank one. Blank document. Just say, yeah, just create a document in a way. If you ask me that, we just want a blank one. Okay, so what are we going to do? Let's say that we're going to design a, you know, I'll put it here. So we'll design a logical design for a person owner who buys cars from any auto dealership. Okay, so this one here, what are we looking for? Okay, so this is the logical design we'll get. So we have to kind of like look at that and say, okay, what kind of tables do we need in this scenario? All right, so if you think in the details, we're looking at a person or you can call this the owner. And we'll look at cars, okay, information about cars and the info about a dealership, right? So I can say that a person can buy cars, maybe you can have many cars, okay? From any auto dealership, you don't have to buy only from a single dealership. You can buy from different auto dealership. And the cars, a car, if you think about a car, doesn't matter what type it is, if it's a vehicle, can be stored or owned by the dealership for sale, okay? And then the car has information about the car, like the number and so forth. So we do all those stuff. So that means that a car can be bought from a dealership and the dealership can have a single car, which is not ideal or has many cars, right? So you have some kind of relationship between the two, the three things here, right? One car can only be at one dealership at any time. The unique car, if you think about the actual car itself. And then when the car is sold to the owner, right? This car can only be owned by a one owner. We'll make some requirements that way. But the owner can buy many cars from any dealership, okay? So look at that sentence or that story. These are the conceptual design you have to come in mind, right? Put on the table, talk it out, talk with your team or if you're a client and asking about it, asking lots of questions, what do they need, what are the requirements before you do the design? Okay, so I'm gonna move back over here as we have room. And then we're gonna go into this blank here. So when you do this, I'm not going to use this standard shape. So over here we're not use flow truck. So again, flow truck for the previous, any assembly you wanna use, I'm gonna go and locate, you can turn all these off actually, we don't need these standard shapes here. You wanna go and search in the library here, search for the one that says ERV or entity relationship. Okay, so this is the only one. Check that box and just go ahead and click selected shapes. Okay, the entity relationship, that's what you want. Okay, and now you see here. So very simple, just four of them. If you hover over this, this is not, we want something that looks like this. The second one is the one you want. So it is basically, I think drag it over here. Okay, drag it over here. And now you can, I'll make it a little, I'll make it a little bigger to the seat, but let's see. Okay. So what do we need to put here? So the first table I wanna look at is the, maybe the owner table, right? So for now, we're not gonna do any relationship yet, just put the information about those people or entity. So this one here is gonna be the owner, so I can call it the owner, the name of that table or entity. Okay. And then the key fields, and what do we want to put in this corner? So you're building everything pretty much from top down, because we have to go and identify what information that we need to describe this owner. So every person, and every table must have a unique key. So over here, you can put here PK, a primary key, and just have it over and type, we'll create one, what do I call it? Oh, we call it SSN, doesn't matter. I'll just make one up. Just call it owner underscore ID, okay? So this will be the primary key for that particular owner. And then the rest could be just blank, we'll leave that out, that out, okay? So the next field will be things like, you know, first name, right? You need to know the first name, and then just tap, tap, and then last name, okay? And so forth. You can add more addresses and things like that too. So if you want to add another row before Apple, you can select one of these rows and do a right click on it, and it says, insert below above. So for example, if I do below, then here, I just leave that blank, have it over, and we call this like something like that, okay? So this identifies this owner. I mean, we're just very simple. Look at that, we're smaller, oops. Okay, so we had the owner table, and you can drag it over here again, or you just select this table and press the control D, and it will duplicate that table for you, okay? Like that. So the next one could be the dealership. So let's put here the dealership or, yeah. And each dealership has its own ID. So again, I used the same convention, dealer ID. Okay, that is the primary key that identifies this dealership because the one that can have like 200 dealerships in the same city. So which one is it? Oh, so you see that they have their own ID, if you go to Walmart, each store has their own store ID. That's how you identify those places. So again, the field would be like the name of the dealership and maybe the location, you can be more specific, like the city and things like that, the address. So for now, we're just gonna put this very basic information about that, okay? So that's two or three IDs. We could add more as we go because again, during the building phase, right? If you have more information, we could add in two until we find it. So we need another table for the car, right? So we're gonna go back here and duplicate this table and we just put it somewhere here, doesn't matter. We're right here. And so we'll call this, we'll get the car. So again, notice I used singular noun for these tables, even though you have owners and dealerships and cars. Okay, so just fall back to singular noun and think about each table represents one object. So if it's a single car, a single dealership, single owner, right? Rule. And then the car, I could call it car ID because again, cars are very common. So you can use the VIN number, okay? VIN is usually capitalized because it's very common for cars. And then the information about the car you can have like the make, model, and then we have the year of the car was built and so forth. You have color of the engine and, you know, engine size and whatnot. D-O type and things like that. Wheel, right? So again, very basic about the information. Okay, so now that is pretty much all we need for those three things if you want to build this relationship. So we identify the entities, we identify the unique ID that will be used to identify each individual object for instance of that type, right? So, you know, Shaka could be in here, he owns a car from Honda, first in Honda, right? He bought another car from Kenosha for something, right? So it's all the same pattern. So now let's look at relationships. Okay, so you draw relationships by, if you click on it and hover it right here the dots you can draw a line across. It doesn't have to be, that's mapped directly to the column. Sometimes it's easier to see that way but it doesn't have to be that way. So I could just say this owner, I could draw a line has some kind of relationship. Well, you know, I don't really have, can I do this? It doesn't make sense, right? Can a dealership has the owner? No, you don't, right? Dealerships don't own owners. Owners don't have dealerships, not in a business sense. In a business sense, yeah, you can see, but an owner as a person. So in this case, there's no direct relationship between the two, okay? So it would not make sense to have it this way, right? But so we're gonna say, okay, that's not possible. It doesn't work. Ken only have a car. Yeah, they do, they do. So let's put down here. So we have, it's just nicer to put it this way. So we say, okay, owner can have a car. So I can map that together. If you click the dot and connect 80 dots in the right side, that's matter. And this is the default on line here. Okay, the line here is connector, connecting two together. And the default here is says one, the line here means one. It grows foot on this side and many. So if you read again from the owner's side to the car, I would say owner can have or can own. So those words you can use to add in here. One or many cars, you can also own zero cars. Is it possible? Is it possible that I may not own any car? Yeah, in real life, right? I can live without a car. And so to be more exact, you can click on this line and then on the end of the side over here, if you look on the top diagram, this one here shows you the end point. On this side, this is on the left side of this table here, okay? So based on the line you select, it will give you that option. So I'm gonna say on the right side, the owner can have zero is optional or many cars. So you can drop that, click that drop down and you select the one that has a circle in front of it. The circle with a three line, three cross four. So now you see that it has a circle. I mean, it's optional or I can have many cars, okay? So if I choose the other one, like this one here, optional one, for example, this one here, if you do that, that means I can have zero car or at most I can only one car. I cannot own them more than two cars, one to one car. That is the restriction. So again, based on your business logic, can you allow an owner to own two cars, right? So if that is true, then you change it, okay? So that's how we use this to design this book. So we're gonna have zero or more car. So from the car side, can a car be owned by one person, right? Can a car be owned by nobody? And is that possible, right? In the real world, maybe, if a car is like, you trash or something, then the car is still there. There's no ownership and things like that. Well, assume that a car is like drivable, okay? So in this case, a car must be owned by somebody, right? Either at the owner here or owned by the dealership. So a car can only be owned by, will make a rule that must be owned by exactly one. One person, one owner. So this one here is like one owner and it must, there's no circle. So it's not optional, okay? So they're related somehow. And then right in the line here, you have to go and, if you click on this or that, if you double click on it, I think it lets you to put some text in here. So you write some text. So from the owner side, except owner has or owns, doesn't matter, has a car, okay? So you can read it, owner has a car. But if you read the other side, say car has a owner. That's true too, right? In this case, it works both ways. If it doesn't make sense, then you change the wording to say, and so it'll work in both ways. So like a car like owned by, and then you put it on the side. So sometimes you see that, you see something like this as well. Like, oops, has a, and then you put like a slash and then owned by, like that. You can do that. So it's understood. You can drag it, put aside a little bit above it and make some lines here. And when you read it, it's understood. Like an owner is owned by a car. Of course it doesn't make sense. That way you can say the car is owned by one owner. A owner has a car or has made a car, yes. So you identify that relationship there. Okay, so now we look at the other relationship. So we know that a dealership has no direct relationship with the owner, but dealership can also have cars, right? Okay, so a dealership has to have a car. Before we go to the further though. So when you have this kind of relationship here, we have to specify this table or this table, a what's called a foreign key. Okay, so now they're connected together. Now, these two table here, which table should be a what's called a child table or a parent table. So if this car, okay, if this car is owned by an owner, how do we know that this car belongs to like Jeffrey or belongs to me or belongs to Jacob? So how do we know from this information here? So when you join two tables in here, you must have a foreign key in here. So we can say that this car is owned by an owner. So therefore in this table, you have to have a field. So I'm gonna add another field here. You're right above this make column row. Right click on that and gonna add above it. Now I put here a foreign key. Okay, so the FK and it's gonna map to the owner ID. Okay, so that's how they're related. So the car has a number is owned by the owner based on this owner ID. So the FK is a primary key that is pulled or linked to the primary key of the other table. It's a foreign key. So now I can identify the two. How do I know which car belongs to this person? You check, you say, select da-da-da-da from owner join, right? Join the car on the owner ID, right? So that's how they match. If they match ID ID, then oh yeah, okay, I can pull all the cars from this table that belongs to Jeff or belongs to Jeff or belong to Christian, right? That's how you work. And you see that, you did that in the exercise already. I usually map to, you map to a foreign key in the primary key of the two tables. It would not make sense if I put own ID match to the event number, okay? You're not gonna find that. It's probably even turned to zero. So we got that out of the way. So the next thing is now we think about the car and the dealership. Now don't focus on the owner now. We don't care about the owner. We just focus on the car and the dealership. So who owns who, right? So a car for sure doesn't own a dealership. So it would be kind of similar to the owner, okay? So a dealership also put here, a dry line again, owns a car. So now we go in here and can ideally have zero cars? It's possible, right? No cars, can have more than one car, yeah, right? So you can modify this. And say, okay, well, the dealer can have zero or many cars. But again, a car can either own by a owner or own by a dealer, right? So look at that just one to one. I mean, the table to table. Don't worry about the other tables. Because once you show the car, then it owns the other way. So by the same token, how do I know that this car belongs to the Racine Honda? So the car in this table, likewise, must have another foreign key that links to the dealership table, okay? So over here then I'm gonna add another field right below this F key here. Gonna add another one below it. And we're gonna put here another F key for the dealer ID. Okay, so based on this information, I can find out, okay, this car was owned by the dealership. But when it sold the car, it belongs to the owner now. So this owner bought this car because I mapped the ID. Where is this car bought from? From this dealership here, okay? So you can see that relationship. If this owner sold the car to another owner, right? The owner would change to a different owner, but the original car was actually bought from this dealership. So you can trace back to where it was originally bought or purchased from. Okay, so we got that taken care of. So now we look at this side of the table again. So if you think about a car, okay, so a dealership can have one, zero or many cars of different types. Like I have a Honda, a Tesla or Ford, right? Now, if you think about a car or cars in general, so the way I have here is that I'm saying that all the cars can only be owned by one dealership. Is it true, right? So in this case, it's not true because cars can be anywhere, can be in many dealerships, okay? So in this case, it's not correct because this is very strict. It just means that all the cars can only be sold at this single dealership and that is not true. The one, it means single. You cannot have more than one dealerships. So that's not true. But yeah, all the cars can only be owned by a single owner. That's true. The car, I guess. So we want to also change this one line, saying that the car on the left side can be sold at many dealers, right? Okay, so this one here, I'm going to go in here, add another notation here. Just so we can see right here, you can add another note here right below. Let me see. So we know, yeah, I'll just put it here. By next to the bind, I put here, is a one, two, many, okay? Because many is on the other side, right? The cross foot on the other side. So a person, one owner can have many cars. Then a car can only own one owner. So one calling them, meaning one, two, many. So one, two, many relationship. And then this one here, going to put another message saying dealership can, I guess, same thing has, or put here also, same thing when we get owned by. But then we have here, many, two, many. I mean, not owned by, but I guess, I don't know how you would phrase this. It's not really owned, which is sold at or something. But this was called a many, two, many relationship, okay? So dealership, we have many types of cars. A car can be sold in many dealerships, okay? In our restrict to only one dealership. That's what this means. Or maybe not owned by, I can say, sold at, makes more sense. A car can be sold at a dealership, many dealership. So this and many, many. In this example, it will work fine, but when you write it into a code, it will not make sense. Okay, so when you create a table, you're not going to create exactly like this and you create a many, two, many relationship. You will work in the code. So every time when you have, for any time we have a many, two, many relationship, you always have to have a junction table between the two. Why? Because something we don't put here is, for example, if I go down here, yeah, this won't change, right? It make model year won't change. But what if I put here, for example, let's add another will be lower, we call it, we'll keep that there. And we'll call it the price of the car, right? If I price this car, and let's say this for a month thing at 50K at Racine dealership, at 50K. And if I have the same car, the same year make a model, sold at Kenosha dealership, do they sell the car at the same price at 50K? Or do they sell more or less? Okay, so if you don't have a junction table, then junction table, it's not possible to have a variation in prices. So you lock in the price, then you cannot change. And that is not true for a car, right? So a car could be priced differently at different dealership because of the many, many relationship.  You write program to company A, you write another program becoming the same application, do you charge the same price or do you charge differently? Right? So the price changes because based on the company or that negotiation, right? So your pay rate changes based on the project, even though your role is really a developer, okay? So that means that, oh, your price is not going to be fixed across the board. So that's what this means. So in this case, we're going to create a junction table between the two, okay? So, and the junction table will look something like this. Let me, a little bit, so I'm going to trade another one, I'm just going to duplicate. Yeah, I'll duplicate this is fine, duplicate that, put it over here and I'll make this little bit further up, this side to that spaces, okay? So this table here, so the junction table is used to connect two tables that have a many to many relationship. And when you do that, okay, so this actually changes. So instead of going to directly from the dealership to the car, you would connect that to the dealership here. You would call this different here. You call the dealership, I'll call it dealer, maybe underscore car, okay? It's commonly named that way to indicate that this junction table is a connector or junction table connecting the dealership and the car tables. They put the name dealer underscore car. And then the IDs, the PKs, in this case would be both of the tables PKs. So in here, you can create here, put up with the dealer ID and also the PK for the VIN number. Okay, so you can see I have two PKs. And those are uniquely identified, the dealership and the VIN number. So they join together. So in here, instead of price over here, the difference is just the price. So in this case, the price will not be listed over here, okay? So we delete the price and we leave that out. So the price of the car is dependent on the dealership. Oops, so I delete this row because, and then now the lines will be drawn. I'm gonna move this line. I'll do this line first and connect that to, I'm gonna drag this out and connect it to the dealer over here. So we can see, okay? We'll leave it further over here. So the number here will be different. We have a many to many relationship. It's usually like you would do like this, okay? So the left side of the dealership has a one and then on this side, many, right? Zero or many. And then from this side, you do kind of exactly the same thing. So I draw another line here now from this table to this table up here. So the line will be from this table, this side is one, two, I mean, okay? So you see that it's one on the tables side, one on this side now and many, and many goes to the junction table. So notation will be the same up here. I didn't put it, but you can put the same. Okay, so I could do this, has many cars in the middle here. So that could be something like that. So if I do this way, and we can align probably easier to see. So there is my table you can design that you use. Okay, so this table here uses four two of these keys. It's also very common because this is also the pk, but the dealership is also, the d-line d is actually the dealership foreign key. So here you would write it like this, also fk. Okay, and I'll make this a little bit bigger. So we have more space. I'm doing this way like that, stretch a little bit farther out. There's some room in here. I'm gonna stretch that a little bit like this. All right, so it's also the foreign key as well, but it's also part of the primary key. So put it here like that. Both of them joined together to form a primary key for this table. And they're also the foreign key to the dealership, the foreign key to the car. This is one method, okay? You can do that. Another approach I will put over here, just so you can see it is by using like this. So instead of saying, you know, this will be like the foreign key and I can go back to the original size like that and add another row above it and this will be the pk. And this will be like dealer or ID. You can do that too, if you want. So this is another option, how to create a junction table. I put two here as you can see, but this is actually the preferred approach. And the reason why is because if primary keys every table must have a pk, one or more pks, okay? So here I'm using this pk, this pk, so it's basically joining both of them together to form a primary key. And they're also the foreign keys to the two foreign tables because they will always be unique if you combine them together, right? So a dealership cannot have the same car twice, okay? So this is the preferred approach and database design, but you can certainly create your own additional primary key like this if you don't want to use them together. The way you do here is you add another ID, so follow the rule. Every table has a unique ID, so I just create one. And by doing this way, you actually, it's not efficient because you are creating a unique ID for this table where you can actually already obtain a unique ID to combine the two. So you are creating extra data, which is not useful. So you're just wasting space here, okay? For your optional, what are you not recommended, okay? This is, I mean, it's okay, but this is not, I should say not efficient, probably better. This is not an efficient approach. This is the better approach, okay? So that is our design. So everyone has their number and you will see that sometimes you can break this down further but we'll do this in, you know, when you do normalization, you can break this number down and you can actually break it even further so that, you know, the actual event number can be on its own table. And then I just do one more way quick and I'll just stop. So for example, what do the owner and the dealership have in common? I call it location here, but maybe we'll change this to address, right? Okay, so usually the address would be kind of the same, like in, you know, city, state, right? The address, city, state and zip code, right? So if I were to list that here, it's redundant. I could do like city, state, zip code and so forth, and then city, state, zip code and so forth, right? So what you can do is that you can add another table over here and we'll create one over here on the left side. That can be shared by both owner and the dealership. So I will create over here an address table. Okay, and you can call it like the address ID. And then here you'll put the address address one, address two, and they have the city, right? And let me add another row below city, state and zip. So I think we have here blank here, state and then zip. That's a very common address that can be connected to the owner as well as the dealership. So instead of having this way, I was in here. So the address here then will have, how do you know this address belongs to the owner and this belongs to the dealership? Okay, so you add in here, I will go here and add two keys of one above, one below here, add another one below here. So this would be the FK for the owner ID. This address FK for the dealer ID, okay?  So same thing, this address here belongs to the owner and also belongs to the dealer. So they share the same table. So you don't have to have like duplicates data inside the owner table and the dealer table, right? You are creating a more efficient data. So here then this table cannot be joined by the owner table over here and then it can also be joined by the dealer table down here. And it's a one to one, right? A dealership had exactly one address. So the notation for both of those will be exactly one to one and then something here one to one, okay? So one address can only be assigned to one particular owner, but you know, in the real world, it's possible that the owner can live in many places, right? So if you look at the individual instance of that, then you have just a one to one. So you can put here again, lives at whatever it is, the same thing located at and then something like that. So one to one, it will be a one to one, I think. No, it may not be right. It's a, no, it's a many to one, sorry. Because if you think about a dealership can have different addresses, so that's not right. If it's one, it's locked in, right? It is not possible, so this is wrong. So on the left side, the address should be many, okay? So the address is assigned to a dealership, but a dealer can have different addresses, right? They don't belong to the same address, so same thing on this side, you know? Should be, I think it should be, I mean, they can have different address. So they're locked in. So like you, like Jeffrey and Jacob and me, if you don't live in the same address, okay? So here would be one, two, so we may need to one. So something like this, I think, and as you think through some more and add more data to it later, you'll see that, oh, it doesn't make sense if you're gonna keep modifying early on, okay? When you add some data, some simple test data, just to make sure it makes sense before you go ahead and roll out and then go live or something. So not all tables are related directly, but I can access this information based on their identity and based on the IDs, right? So I can actually get, like, find it, tell me all the people who bought all the any car from the dealer, from this dealer. I don't have a direct connection, but I can go this way and then I can connect that dealership, right? See how they're related because of these lines here. And sometimes you will see that there is no relationship between the two. Like, for example, you might have a floating, a floating table out here like this. Maybe this is just some kind of a, I don't know, a market. Has no relation to the name and then the type of market you have. Like this table here has nothing to do with any of these cars or dealers, right? How's the market doing, you know, whatever it is. You have the information here for whatever other reasons, like for decision making or something like that. So in this case, it's floating around. So you have like, if you look at this in a big one, see what we call sometimes virtue islands. You have like one big island here and then we have one small island over here. You might have a couple islands that are only connected by two tables or more. And if you look at the amateur works again, if you see that picture, if you expand that adventure works table, you will see a bunch of islands. A group of related, we call it themes, right? We talked about themes before.


Yn y gallu ymgyrch, yma ar Eiritan vs Brighton. Yn hoff, Albin. Dych chi'n trwy'r llyfr yn y ddechrau. Felly mae'n cofnod. Felly mae'n ddisrespet ym mwyn. 3 o'n ddweud o'r llwydd, yng Nghymru, ond nid i'n gweithio. Nod. Nod, mae'n ddweud. Mae'n ddweud. Mae'n ddweud. Ddweud. Felly mae'n ddweud. Mae'n ddweud o'r llwydd. Have they have a disappointing result at all Trafford? I mean we've got, obviously Manchester United last week was the start of a few tough away games. Obviously it likes the Chelsea, Liverpool and Manchester City ahead them as now. But the home games are quite favourable and that's why they've got to be one happening.  Felly ond, a'r ghaith gyda'r game hon ymlaeniau hynny, ond mae'n meddwl yma hwnnw, fyddai'n gwneud hynny, ond hefyd yn oed yn dda.  Rwy'n meddwl'i'n gweithio'r grwp yn rhoi. Rwy'n meddwl i'n meddwl i'w'r grwp yn y debyg. Rwy'n meddwl i'n meddwl. Si'n roi ei wneud i'w gweld, neu'n meddwl i'r grwp yn ei ddweud… Nod, mae yw'r credu'n gweithio'n gweithio'n gweithio. Gallwch mynd i gydag gydag 27 pwynt yn y 23 ddechrau, i ddweud'n gweithgwydd. Dwy'n gweithwch i gydag, yw'n gweithwch chi oedden nhw. Ni'n gweithio prgynso ffordd. Felly gwelwch. Yma, mae'r gweithwch o'r amser Maen Nôl yn ymdinddon fod yn fwy dyfynwyr a'n amser yn gyfer mae siaradau, y pob gwirig o'n cyd-dyn nhw. Yna, dyfynwyr wedi gwasa pwynt hwn o'r adod yn dweud, dyfynwyr o'n pob i hwdydddon i'r cyfar yma. Felly mae'n rhaid i'r gweithio bod oes yn y meddwl o'r pobl symud o homes. A fyddai'n meddwl, os ond arall bryddoedd, ond mae'n wneud yr gweithio bod oes yn cael ei gwaith. I'n meddwl i'r 3 o rhan, mae'n meddwl i'r last 3 gwasanaethau. Ydw i'n meddwl, mae'n meddwl oes rhoi'r unig, oherwydd am y dyn ni, rwy'n meddwl i chi ddyn ni wedi wneud rhaid yn meddwl i ei ddweud. Diolch byd. Last thing to win four in a row by that's going on in Leicester in April 2016, on four games one now. Now they've got good defenders, or proper defenders, like Duffy and Dunk, they'll throw themselves in a way of things. They get headers in, they're big lads, but you can get round them. They've got mistakes in them. But they're a decent side, they've got a good goalkeeper in Matt Ryan. They've got a decent side, Chris Ewing's a good manager. Is he top level? Probably not, but he's a good manager. That's suited, I think this kind of job suited. There's no pressure on him at Brighton so he can get on with the job a little bit like how at Bournemouth. There's no pressure, anything he does in the Premier League with this team is a success. Yes, because they haven't got pots and pots of money. That allows you to build, which brings success. And that's what I suppose is good about these teams. I like Brighton, I think. I've got nothing against him. I think there are hard work inside. I think they've got, you know, they had to play at that Wifffield Stadium. You know, they had the goals down the ground. Sort of Wifffield Stadium, which was literally like the mystery. One I could just like it a little mad thing. And then he'd gone to the AmEx and it's a boss, little arena for them. They fill it, the crowd get behind them, you know. And they've been building to get into the Premier League for years, you know. Pwyau neil, he got them open, then there was a massive fall out over that. But they've got up, Chris Ewing's done a really good job. I think Newcastle were on to track him and they tracked him because he was doing a good job at Newcastle. I think he's a very, very good coach. And I think if you let good coaches get on with it. Like you've just said, like Eddie Howes. I'm not saying Eddie Howes isn't a buff, I don't know. But Eddie Howes just being able to coach his team so they know everything. So that's why, when you look at Bournemouth, you go, probably wouldn't really have him. It's not littered with players. You'd naturally go, oh, we hope Everton. Sorry, hope someone signs it. But they know the role brilliantly and they do the job brilliantly. And Brighton of getting on with Glen Murray. Glen Murray actually played for Bournemouth, didn't he? He wasn't at Bournemouth and he couldn't get in and Brighton took him. He was at Palace. I'm sure he went to Bournemouth and he was at Miss. And then he got into Brighton and his fans was home again there. They'd play him all the time. He's the one of the top scorers in the Premier League at the moment. So they're a good hard-working side. He's got a little bit of, you know, he's got a little bit of sprinkling here and there. But do you work for each other? I work hard here, he's the big kid up front as well. Do you work for each other down? Do you do the same? And you have to respect that. And you know that they'll come to Goddison and they'll do what they did last season. They'll be organised, they'll work hard. And they'll try and exploit set pieces and try and exploit those kind of opportunities. They'll come and know. See, they're a weird side of Brighton because I think everyone, you play them and you expect it to be an open game. But it's not because they've got good shape. They're not someone like Fulham who will come and be open and allow you to play. They'll get men behind the ball and they'll make it difficult for us. Last season we beat them, but it was good strikes. And that's what we'll need. I think on Saturday we'll need to be patient and we'll need to take our opportunities of course. Because I think we still don't create that many clear cut opportunities. We just don't. I think that's why... What's good though is that we're averaging 16 shots over the last half a dozen games which compared to six and seven last year is a massive improvement. But when we do make great opportunities we don't really score, which is bizarre. You know, we had half a dozen chances rolls last year for the weekend. OK, the only one you'd really say was Gilted's was Bernard's one, but Gomez and Sigarton probably should have done better. You know, the week before we beat Palace, but we've missed chances and the same, less than the same against Fulham. You can go back, so, you know, we have got to be more clinical in front of goals and questions about it. But the fluidity to which we play and the options we now have off the bench, the teams getting stronger, you know, the Brighton faced us twice last year and, you know, we needed a last minute penalty down there from Wayne to get us a point and we beat them at home. But they'll be facing a very, very different evidence side this year. More attacking side, a fitter side, and a more physical side in terms of strategy, that's why. I think that's even that's got more confidence in himself. And that's why I was disappointed that the results are all traffic because I didn't think we were... I didn't think we were... there was enough belief in what we wanted to do. I don't think there was times where we got enough men. You know, I think the perfect one to prove that was Dignay's cross in the second half, that Richard Harrison went near post and two players stood on the penalty spot and if one of them gambled to the back post, well, he would have had a scold and put it back in with his two players. You just got it that six years. That's what I'm saying. There's not enough of that. There's not enough. Oh, there's not enough. You know, in the first half, when Mocott is having shot on my bangles, when there's people in the box and you think, just flash it across and see what's in there. Colman had the one that didn't even go, and she plays it well. In the first half, three men had it, and they cut it back to the penalty, there's no one.  Just the wrong decision, but hopefully that'll come. And these will have to be... they will have to be on the game to try and get them. I know we've had the disappointment this Sunday, but even saying that, we're disappointed coming away from old Trafford. We had 14 attempts, the goal was the same as United. The percentage was slightly favoured in there. In their favour, slightly ahead in there, which is what you'd expect. Everything else was level, so they won the game with the penalty that never was, really. So we could quote like that. We could look at Liverpool and say, really, it was 1-1. Because the penalty, so we didn't get beat. We could say that. No, I think what Man United showed is, again, they used that word aggression or the belief that they were going to get something out of it, and I think that's what was missing from it on Sunday. I don't think there was times where there wasn't that belief that we could actually go there. It's almost like an arrogance that teams know they can go. You go seeing spares when they went there and there was an arrogance that they could get. Not really an arrogance, but there's a belief. Confidence in their own ability. I said it. For me, Sunday, it was almost like what people talk about with silverware. You're playing the game and you're getting shown. You're getting a walk through. At times, I think there was just too much of that on the pitch as well. But I just look at it. The confidence thing is 100% there, because when we went there and beat them, that's what they scored. We then went there the year later. Everyone was like, we'll beat these again, and we were at the higher world class save away from getting a point that day. Under Cuman, we went there, we were seconds away from winning the game until Ashley Williams decided to throw an arm at something he should have added.  The first time he batted us for years, and then Sunday again, you know, they just got the breakthrough when he needed it, because the game was even until he gave the penalty. There would have been the other way. It might have gone the other way. So I think it's just transitioning that way we play that belief into we can actually win it. Like we did at Leicester, we just kept going, and kept going, and Guilfee pulls something out. Like we did against Palace at home, we just kept popping it round, popping it round, and there was a belief that had come. You might have had that belief on Sunday, and we were kind of a bit like, well, you know, we're staying in the game, so to speak, and it's like, just transitioning that, you know. But again, it's taking chance for me. Look at Arsenal, right? But it's taking up. It's taking up. It's time as well, isn't it? Listen, we're still quite early in the photo. 10 games in. And you know, you've only just got Gomez into the midfield, we've still got Jeri Mina, you know, who I think, I know the debate is there, but I do think that when he gets into the side, he will help the side, because the manager has got a picture in his head of what he wants from it. Well, he's in in two weeks, isn't he? Because he's got to be in in two weeks, because he's in a week. Or a week, just over a week. So, Zoom, I can't play. I'm quite sure Mina will play against Goa Marri, in that little friendly game on the sport, as a cup, and I'm sure he'll play in that game, even if it's just 45 minutes. And then he'll be good to go, and then we'll see. It's a reason to go. It's a reason to get your tickets. It's a first-team fixture. Yeah. It's a reason to get your tickets. We're treating it. We'll be doing all the match preview and everything. Yeah, we'll be there, because it's a first-team fixture. I want to see Luchman playing, and I want to see Mina, and I want to see Goa Marri, and Dela Duran, you know, James McCarthy, and I'm sure I'll play 45 minutes. So, Jal Virginia, I think I might even get a game. So, it's going to be interesting, but it's about that, isn't it? It's about us. No, but I think that Mina, when I think they'll have an idea, because that's why I said this, probably said this last week. That's why I'll say, Goa Marri is in the team now. The manager is looking at me and going, you're better than what we've got. And you've seen that on Saturday Sunday. You've seen him second half. You've got second half. The way he started picking up the bottom, the one when he had the header, because we haven't obviously, we haven't done that. You're in here for the final wave, but that one, when he gets it, and he passes it off, gets it, goes past three men, lays it wide, and he's on the end. The cross wasn't great, the header wasn't great, but you've seen that little glimpse of what we've done. It was his calmness, I loved it. It was when he had the ball on Saturday and the hour half, he never panicked under it, and he would just turn away and run away from a couple of it. He left pubbiff a dead a couple of times. You've got the stature as well.  So are you quick? And you can, I'm still not sure what foot he is, because he'll pin, get left one, then he'll pin one right foot. So you're right, the manager knew that, and he'll be looking at Mina and doing the same, and going, well, it's up to Keen and Zuma to partner you. Now, okay, they're the partnership at the moment, and they're doing okay. Three goals that we can see them for. No, yeah. It's not bad, but Mina's waiting in the wings now, and he's obviously ready. So it's it. I feel as like you probably. It's competition, and competition's exactly what we need, and that's where, you know, we looked at it Sunday, and again, listen, I'm not, I'm not jumping on anyone's back, but obviously, as the team progresses, people will start to look at individual positions and say, well, we need to do better here, and we need to do better there. And that's where that's a, a replacement long-term, a replacement short-term. That's up to the manager. He'll know whether he'll see every day in training. He'll know things and out-of-players of whether is there something affecting them. Do I leave them in because there's something affecting them, or do I take them out because something's affecting them? And I just wonder whether he'll do that Saturday with the, with, with, you know, the right-hand side. I don't expect him to take Sheamus Coleman at the team. I really don't. I don't. I think the manager will look at that position and say, well, he's, he's being out with an injury. He's finding his way back. We know he's notorious that when he's being out, even before the broken leg, when he's had an injury, he takes Sheamus Coleman time to find that. Take him about two months. Yeah. Doesn't it? And almost, you've got to almost play him through that two months, and I know it's not, that's not ideal. Listen, if someone's sitting on the bench who was right there with them, then, then... John Joe's getting better, but he's not right there. But you've got to say sometimes, you've got to know who's the better player, and you've got to sometimes just let them play. She's the better player. Exactly. But... I think with Sheamus, he's even come up himself this week and said what we're all saying, which is he's not at his level. And my, my thing isn't with he's playing terrible. It's his choices. That's bothering me. It's not like you're looking at him going, God, he's awful. It's his choices. It's like when Walcott comes inside, and there's a big space on the outside, he's not running.  But the other side to that is, he's nearly 30. And so we do need to have the same with Bains. We said it for Bains and it took us two, two years too long, probably three. We need to be looking at a bright, you know, someone who's going to come in and push not only John Joe, but push Sheamus and go. You've got to, haven't you? You know. But ahead of him, he'll walk up on me the one where you go, actually, this could be the game that you say, it's a home. And you say, come and have a rest. Because it didn't, because he hasn't played well for weeks. But I was willing to, I was willing to say, well, yeah, but he's still, he's still offering something because I still think he does offer something because players don't like being up against pace. It's as simple as that. It's like when Guilfee was going through, you know, a bit of a rough spell and people were saying, well, what does he do? And then the next minute, he does something. And I think that's the same with Theo. I just think that with Luchman there, I think the uptain, Luchman's attitude, the manager might look at that now and go, now it's the time to just give Theo a chance. Luchman's now starting to become what I said he needed to be, which is number one sub. He was up the weekend. The game wasn't going the way he wanted it. He was the first person he called for. It was Luchman. And it was Luchman. And I'm going, he had 10 in eight minutes. Then he had 10 minutes. There was a 30. And he had half an hour at all. And he didn't even come on to replace him. He came on to replace Bernard. Exactly. So the other thing is, well, don't forget what he could do. Is he could say, well, cut out, put Bernard off the right, put the child as in back, where he's going to bring Jantau as in back in or front that's what he could do. Because don't forget where only three games in with the child as in centre forward. He's more like a false nine the child isn't. He doesn't play as a striker because he's not making those runs that I think he should be. He's quick and he's strong. He should be on the shoulder. But he's just getting to sit. He wants to get involved. He likes to be involved. And that's maybe way somewhere. But isn't it good though that we're discussing four or five different options or going Luchman that you're coming on. I don't know yet, but what about Towson or maybe Dom and the Cat. So there's them options a day. Last year it was Nias.  You can be put off. Certainly at this stage at this stage in the scene. But what's good is is that those players know that there's people jumping at the bit to take their plays. Do you know about Walkout? I found disappointment on Sunday because the second goal, if you're not playing well and you've done and you've made a mistake, just get back. Just work hard? Just put your ten yards in. 10 y yard sprint, ac yna ni'n gweithio hynny. Wrth gwrs, mae gennym 4 sefyllfa. 4? Felly gan y ball, a dwi'n dechrau dwi'n dechrau. Ac mae'n syniadau, mae'n syniadau mynd i'n gweithio. Mae'n cael ei fod yn dweud. Mae'n dweud eich bod yn ei ddysgu'n ei chywb. Mae'n dwi'n dechrau'n ddysgu'n ei ddysgu. Mae'n amdano'n atrygiad. I ran Studieshwp i ddim i i feu naturi yn rhaid i ddim i ddim i ddim I ddim yn ddim i ddim i ddim i wedi newid ymlaen, ydw i gyflog. Rwy'n cael ei gychydog i fyny, ar gyfer gweithio hwn. Rwy'n cael ei gydag ei gydag, rwy'n cael ei gydag, hefyd rydyn ni'n gwyburniddf yn rhaid i gydag. Is ydych yn ddigon, dyna rydyn ni'n cael ei gydag. Ond yn i dweud, nad byddai ei wedi ei wasianol. Mae'r cyflymo yn cael ei cael ei seiriad beth i amser. Ac hynny ac roedd i'n cael ei amgylchedd ar hyn. Roedd maen nhw'n gwneud i'r buzzer o gyntaf ar y galen, oherwydd mae'n podblu cyfraabe, maen nhw'n eu cyd-pethau ar y glendith ar y cyfraabedau, sy'n cael ei amgylchedd ar y glendith, a'n arfer o ganddfa, oherwydd mae eich ganddfa. Dwych nhw. Elrwych. Alrwch, mae'r modd. Rydyn ni'n gallol pan-do-do... Rydyn ni'n gallu'n gwybwyr? Roeddwn ni arwt i'n gtwaini. No, no! I just mean overall. But it's an option. Listen, there's loads of... Listen, I'm still thinking Tom Davies could play right back. Fyll y codd, righty. I still think he could be the natural successor to Seamus. Well, I think that'd do him good for even if it was just for a year or so. But then we'll get a cue as he just target Tom Davies in the team. Well, no, I mean, there's loads of... Could you play for Cumin on the section? There's options out there, I just... I think... See, for me, I play Luchman. Rhywbeth'n dechau, ond mae'n ddau o'r trafodd flies yng Nghymru yn fawr i'r cyfrifeth fath o syml ac rhaidóa hwn. Rwy'n ddak i'n ddechrau i'r trafodd flynyddonon ymlaen i ymlaen i'r trafod ffineddol, ac o hynny, i'n ddau i ddau i'r trafod ffineddol, ymlaen i'r trafod ffineddol. Ymlaen i'r trofod distinctive, byddai'n meddwl am hollol i'r trafod ffineddol. Dwi'n crem, o'r ynlleg a ewch yn siwr i ni. Dwi'n crem, rwy'n crem. Rwy'n crem eich 75 miliwn efallai ffamara. Rydyn ni'n gwybod i mi oedd yna'i arghau. Dyna'n gofyn arall, mae'n gyfarwaidd. Rydyn ni'n rydyn ni'n dewis a gydain i chi. Chelsy woe yn y bastaven ni'n adeilad i maes, a oeddem feiais. Rydyn ni chi'n gwneud, mae'n fywb i ddau yng Nghyrchu Llanig, bod yna'r gwaith prif oedd yng nghymru. that there is plays you've got to have. If your best play is there you've got to make sure you've got plays just below them and say that they're better than the other. Well I think if you look at 12 months ago, and this is what I was saying about Brighton because we played these almost 12 months ago, there was a gringau, there was one attempt eating the first half, it was awful. ac rwy'n gwybod ar y dan, ac rwy'n gwybod y gwylio'n gweithio ar gyfer ar yr un yn ymgyrch, ac rwy'n gwybod y bench. ac rwy'n gwybod y half o ddod y ddisgwyl iawn, ac rwy'n gwybod ar gyfer y bench yn yr un. Byddai yn gweld y baradau ar gyfer y ddisgwyl iawn e, ac rwy'n gwybod ar gyfer y ddisgwyl iawn. Y dyfodraeth yna yma, mae y gallwch i yn ychydig i'r llyg. Mae'n meddwl i'n gael'r s SNF yn safi ym Rhwr. Mae'n meddwl i'n meddwl i'r senni'n st gainede? Mae'n meddwl i'n gael'r senni a wnaed? Mae'n meddwl i'r mflusi'r ddechrau a'r berthafel ar y cyfnodd mae'n meddwl i wedi'w'n chynllun ei gweld yr Eistedd. Mae'n meddwl i Ddechrau, a'i'n meddwl i'w gweld yr Eistedd. Mae'n meddwl i'wEL, mae'n meddwl i'w ei ddefnyddio'r ddechrau, mae'n meddwl i'w Llywodraeth. Ond oedd yn gallu'n cael ei amser eich iechyd iawn dyna'r team arwain i'n cael ei bod nhw'n cael ei eich bod i'n cael ego i'n cael ei ychydig gyda Gennag, Le'r gweithio roi ar gyfer, ond rydyn ni'n cael ei amser i wneud i chi nesaf eich amser i ni. Roedd yna'r gweithio'n cael ei fod. Roedd yw'n cael ei bod ychydig. Roedd ei wedi'u maen nhw yn ôl. Mae'r ddisgu mae'r ddweud. Mae'r bob maen nhw yn dal eich trof dysgu eich bod yn gweithio. Felly mae'r ffans, mae'r ffans, sech sy'n y ffans last season byrraet yn Michael Keane. Nawr, Michael Keane's cwm ond ystod i, gyda'r stori, fel o'n eri los dy'r ffot i'w'r plynyddiad y bydd trwp ac mae'r inflamation, mae'n draos i'w cos o'r peynillus, peop o'r ond ysbach, ye? But the same people or some of the same people wouldn't get on shame as Coleman's back if he's playing badly cos he's shame as Coleman, but it's easy to have a go with Tom Dick. Do you know what I mean? So you can't just go, well he's my favourite player. If he's not playing well, you'd have to say he's not playing well and if he's not playing well then he shouldn't be in the team. And the minute we get to that stage we'll go up another level. I mean, this isn't even about shame as Coleman, this is about any everton player. I don't ever like quoting this and all, but Gerard was absolutely spot on when he said in that press conference with the angels about your big players have to step up. And if they don't step up, they're out the door and we get better ones that will. Because if you haven't got that attitude as a football club, if you're not going like, ah, like, Dom's great against like Palos and that, but Dom can't start doing it against Manchester City in Liverpool. Dom needs to, or Gentotian, or Theo Walcott, or Jordan Pitt. Do you know what I mean?  If you just go, ah, Peds boss, I don't know what he does never do with the big, yeah, but he's boss though. We're never going to get better than that's how it is.  The first thing he did was have a kindle, Welshman, have a kindle soul, Gary Lin. I know, but he's got rid of Andy Gray for Gary Lin, if Andy Gray was unbelievable for everything. I mean, we've sat in his presence with the other players. He was, you can see how he would lift the dressing room within two seconds of sitting with him. Kindle just went, you're not going to play because he's better when he went. And then next summer it was going now. I remember Keegan done it with Andy Cowell, right? He did it quite well, but it nearly worked, and he was like, we'll sell them because you trust me. And that day the managers were trying to get to that pinnacle. Ferguson, Yab Stan, David Beckham, they were all up to do, from nothing. In the early days, Paul McGrath. He was on the white side, plays you were, you know, that's the roof. And I thought he was being ruthless. It's just, it's just, it's the professionals, and the players are professionals, and they don't like you just.  The club are like, are willing to, and maybe that's where we've gone wrong in the past. We're not going to hit the barcels, by the way. But in the past, I think we've been looked into, to see that opportunity and say, well, it's time to move on. And sometimes, sometimes as a fan, like you said before, it's hard to let go. But sometimes you look back and think, do you know what, maybe that would have been the best thing. I love Leighton Baines. I absolutely love him. I'm a centre forward, man. He's a left back, but I love him. Right? And I defend him all day long.  See, I thought you were going to say something else then? No. I thought you were going to say we should have sold them to Man United. Well, no, I'm saying if he'd have gone at that time, then yeah, we might have made us go and do something, but then again, no, never. At that time, he wouldn't have done. But what I'm saying is, I'm just trying to say that even last season, I was thinking, no, we just need an understudy cos he's boss. Yeah, Llywchydin's coming, and you've gone. Oh yeah, that's all the stuff Baines doesn't do anymore. Do you know what I mean? So that's the levels of players? It's all about... What? What's the club capital? It's not even getting 18, starting off. What's the best for the club? They got rid of Catino, and it's all... When players get sold, it's all about... It's your pride that actually gets hurt more than anything. Yeah, yeah, yeah. It's how it looks to other people. The manager can't always explain that to you. It's the pride. It's what we've done, what we did for you. Look, that's what we did for years. We'd always... It's a buy, but we're not selling. And yeah, that's great. You're trying to keep a team together, but there might be a point when someone... It is best that someone... We should have sold that setter the year before we did sell them. Not that anyone wanted them to, but that was when he wanted to go and now haven't persuaded them to stay both city off of 20 million. But it's what replaces... Both 20 million at that time. Yeah, it's how you build a team. Because a year later we sold them, we didn't have a pot of vision. So it's all knock on, isn't it? So it's the same with Bains. Bains could have gone at that time, and we would have had to go and do something about it, but we didn't. It is what it is. Fyllain, he went at the right time, then he accepted it, and we moved on. We had Gareth Barry and McCarthy, and we were better for it. So it's that way we've got to get to. But the good thing for me, and the big thing for me this season, is the options we've got. Unlike a side I'm at for dozen players, we weren't even in the 18 at the weekend. Bar and James McCarthy, every one of them is playing minutes for us this season. And that shows where we are. Just some stats before we go, I won't do the top one because I never like jinxing anything. I haven't won the last two Premier League home games without conceding a goal. They won the last three in March last year, without conceding a goal. Interesting. Brighton have won their last three games 1-0. Last, like I said before, last team to do that. Brighton are looking to win four consecutive top flight matches for the first time since 1981. May 1981. They kept a clean sheet in each of their last three League games, more than they had in their previous 24. Three of Evans last four Premier League games, ac oedd y Sumparch have been scored, sorry, three of the goals have been scored by substitutes prior to this, only one of 26 games. Renata by a sub, seven of Evans, last eight Premier League goals have been scored in the second half of games. Let's be three in the upper half time please. Evans' Guilfe Six has done a score five goals in his last six Premier League games, more than he had in his previous 31 for Evans. And Glenn Murray has scored six of Brighton's 11 Premier League goals in 2018-19, 55% of them. The only player to score more than half of his club's goals in the Premier League this season. So it's, I was going to say, it's no surprise to see you did down to my list. Fair enough, fair enough. I'm just looking forward to seeing Brighton's away kit. It's boss. It's green. I love a green kit, I love green kits. I love Evans on a green kit. It's a green kit, I love it. Oh, yeah, Dan, I love that. I love that. I love that. I love that kit. I want to read it as well. Green kit. Green kit. I love that. There you go. Oh, that's neat. Green kit back. Let's move on. Right, there you have it. I'm going to come and sing all the song. I'll be better. Do you have a letter that you thought in the comments or your confidence? Are you a little bit worried? Brighton hit some good form coming to the good of some park. That is not your thought. There's no your thoughts on Theo Wolcott, James Coleman. Yer he mean it. Tell us in the comments. Thanks for watching. We'll see you later.