 Mae'r cws oldau Cysyniau Cysyniau yn ddigwelio'r dysgu o'r maes ei ddweud yn rai amser yn y rodd ffwrdd ar Gwrthaforedd. Mae'n rai amser nhw'n rai amser nhw, yn gweithredu fel ei ddweud, yn hynny'n tredu'r corw i anyodd y ffrasigau extractorau yn roi ardu. Ond mae'n dweud i'r cws yn y rai mas learningo'r bwysig, ac mae'n ddiogelio'r bwysig fel Dynol. Ac oeddwch chi'n gynharu'n meddwl. Felly, rydw i'n meddwl i'r gynharu yma yn mynd i'r gynharu eu Lhyw Cip ar yr hyn ac oeddwn i'n gynharu'n meddwl i'r Lhyw Dynhyw Lhyw Dynhyw, ac yn fwy o'r cyffredinol i'r gwirioneddol i'r gynharu'n meddwl i'r ymgyrchu. Felly, yna'r Gynharu Eu Llywodraeth, ac mae'n gwybod â'r gyfnod, The European elections and indeed the local elections the Europeans at the Europeans, Nigel Farage's party got 27% of the vote and topped the poll, Labour coming in just behind them on 25% and the Conservatives just behind them on 24%. Greens with 8% and the Liberal Democrats below the greens on 5th place in the national election on 7%. Weithiau hyn i wnaeth fotb hwlad І게u – a cy有 g reproductive As I said it was a great result for UKIP especially after the party had suffered – particulary oeddemaeth heatodo iawn So onslawlcyn of the part of previously quite friendly media outlets it was very interesting in the run up to polling day i'r Llonderdad Unedigol a i'r Llyfrin, yn ymgredig, yn ymgyrchau'u bod ffuscodd, yn beth mae'n ffaragio i Nigel Ffarad ag i ddefnyddio'r llachio'r hynny, yn mynd i gyd, rydych chi'n ffarsad ei wneud i fynd meddwl bod fe fyddwn cyllidau wygfaint a'r llachio, yn gallu'n bwysig iawn. Yn hynny'n bwysig iawn, fel hefyd yn unig i'r llachiau ar y dyfodol, Rhywodraeth yn gweithio ar gyfer y ddweud i'r parwydau. Felly, rôl, ac rôl oedden nhw'n ei fod ar y ddoch chi, mae'r rôl o'r ddaeth i'r ddweud, y Gweithraeth yn gallu gynhyrchu'r ddweud. Rhywodraeth yn gweithio ar gyfer y ddweud, mae'r ddweud y mediaeth, y tŷn yn dŷl iawn, a'r ddweud y nôl yn ddweud i'r ddweud i'r partyau. Mae'r ddweud yw'r cyfan, maeth IE i gael y pob-dau o'i cymdeithas gyda'r cyfnod, ac yn ôl i'r pwg, yn ychydig o'r cyflwyno cyfnod. Felly, ydych chi'n gweithio'r gweithio, ac mae'n gweithio'n ei gwaith o'r gwaith i'r gwasanaeth i'r gweithio'r gwaith i'r gweithio'r gwaith i'r gwaith i'r gwaith i'r gwaith i'r gwaith i'r gwaith i'r gwaith i'r gwaith, o'r maen o'r llyniad yma o'r Llywodraeth Llywodraeth, i niwn i'n cael unrhyw o'r Llywodraeth yn ôl. Mae'n cymdeithas i'w Llywodraeth yn cael unrhyw o'r llyniad yma oherwydd yma o'r llyniad o'r Llywodraeth yn cerddol. Mae'n gweithio'n gweithio'n gweithio, ac rydym wedi'n ffrindio'r llyniad, yn ystod o'r pwysig yma yma yn gyllid y ddweud. Wrth gwrs, mae'n olygu i'n meddwl i'r cyfnwysg yma yng Nghaerdydd Nigel Farag ar ystod, ond bydd yn ymgyrch, ac yn ymgyrch yn ymgyrch yn ymgyrch yn ymgyrch yn ymgyrch yn ymgyrch. Mae'n gweithio, ac oherwydd, o'r Lord Ash Cross, yn ymgyrch, yn ymgyrch yn ymgyrch yn ymgyrch yn ymgyrch yn ymgyrch yn ymgyrch yn ymgyrch yn ymgyrch yn ymgyrch, ond ynci gyuned ymgyrch yn ymgyrch yn ymgyrch yn ymgyrch yn ei moddти yn ymgyrch yn ymgyrch yn ymgyrch yn ymgyrch yn ymgyrch yn ymgyrch yn ymgyrch yn ymgyrch yn diolch. Un o modd hynny'n ddwebu gofyn, cyddiodd cymdeithasion yr genom rotate yn routine ladwyn报 тебя? by election coming up very soon in Newark, in Nottinghamshire. If they were to do that, then that would clearly, I think, give them more momentum for Westminster at the general election. The question for UKIPLA over the next year, really, is can they maintain the momentum that the results over the weekend have given them? There are some problems in doing that. The first one is that they are still extremely reliant on Nigel Farage. Nigel Farage clearly is an incredible campaigner, but he is only one man, and there were signs both in public and in private towards the end of the campaign last week that he was beginning to tire, was beginning to fray. This is not necessarily a particularly robust individual, although clearly his public persona is, you know, all smoking, all drinking man. This is a guy who was nearly killed in an airplane crash at the last election, and cannot, I think, maintain the kind of media profile that he maintained over the last four weeks over the course of the next year. And he has himself said that he's going to be stepping back and hopefully allowing others to do some of UKIP's talking for it. But it's not immediately apparent who those people will be. It may be that some of the MEPs who have been elected will be able to do that job for him. His economic spokesman is supposed to be a man of some talent. The party chairman, Steve Craver, is actually very good on the media. I had several people ask me after seeing him on television, who is that guy? He's not bonkers. So he's clearly got something that a lot of UKIP people have not got. I'd met him, and he actually comes over as a very nice guy, so if they were to use him more, he's a candidate in North Devon. That might be a good idea as well. But talking of candidates and talking of MEPs, of course, there is also a downside risk from these people in that they will do and say things that expose the party to ridicule or in bring it into disrepute. Having said that, however, that's what a lot of people said coming into this election, and UKIP did not seem to suffer. The more candidates or councillors were exposed as being racist or just plain idiots, it didn't really seem to matter a great deal to UKIP and the view that was held of it by those people who wanted to vote for it anyway. The other vulnerability UKIP have got is clearly policy. They haven't got any. Now in some ways this is good because you can't be attacked, but they must presumably, unless they defyte all laws that apply to most political parties, there must come a point at which they do have to get some policies and defend them. Faraj has completely disowned the 2010 manifesto, but he has acknowledged himself that UKIP does need to build and construct a policy platform for next time around. That could be problematic because once the electorate is confronted with some of UKIP's policies, which are towards the neoliberal end of things and in particular are much more sceptical about the value of things like the health service, the minimum wage, et cetera, that actually have a lot of support among people who would otherwise vote for UKIP, that might cause them to come unstuck. The other thing that UKIP has to do is to decide on its attitude to some kind of deal with the Conservatives. Now this won't be a national pact if you like, but there may be a series of local agreements, and we've already heard noises from UKIP, both in the last election and since then, about the idea that they will stand down or not stand candidates in constituencies at which the Conservative MP declares himself publicly to want to leave the European Union. Now actually, the number of Conservative MPs who are publicly signed up to this better-off-out stance is very, very small. You can literally count them on the fingers of two hands, about ten. But it could be that more Conservatives, particularly marginal seats, may declare themselves as such if they feel that it will help them by preventing UKIP from standing. Firaz, though, is still, I think, speaking out of both sides of his mouth on that particular issue, but we'll see if any kind of commitment hardens up. So that's UKIP, but I will return to UKIP because obviously they're the big story. In terms of the big losers of the past few days, then they are clearly the Liberal Democrats. Now, why have they lost so much support? I think it's just the ongoing logical consequence of their decision to enter what was a counterintuitive coalition with the Conservative Party in 2010. I think it would have been perfectly feasible for the Liberal Democrats to enter that coalition had they not campaigned for years prior to that general election as a party somewhat to the left of new labour. The problem for them was that they did that, and therefore the coalition with the Conservatives, while it made perfect sense for people like Nick Clegg and David Laws and Orange Book Liberals, market-friendly Liberals, if you like, it didn't really make sense to a lot of people who voted Liberal Democrat in the electorate and for a lot of people who were actually lived activists, although many of them have been prepared to give Clegg the benefit of the doubt until now possibly. The other problem, of course, is not only the joining of that coalition, but actually how the Liberal Democrats have behaved in that coalition. They have been seen by their most vociferous supporters on the centre left and by a lot of the electorate as a bit of a pushover for the Conservatives. In other words, there aren't that many things that you can point to, particularly when it comes to the economic programme of the Government, where the Conservative Party has not been able to get its way, and I think that has gradually told on Liberal Democrat support. Now, Nick Clegg, as you've probably heard, has come under quite a bit of pressure over the last day or two. I don't know about you, but I am on Twitter, and I tweeted yesterday breaking news deputy prime minister designs in Ireland, but that got quite a lot of retweets, presumably some people just read the first few lines and believed that it was, in fact, possible or had come to pass. Actually, he probably will survive. That seems to be the common wisdom. Why is that the case, or a number of reasons? I think there is, although there shouldn't be, a kind of talismanic totemic difference between getting one seat in an election, which is what the Liberal Democrats did, and getting no seats whatsoever. It's absolutely ridiculous, but I do think that that does make a psychological difference. More importantly, however, is the fact that I think the strategy for the Liberal Democrats, which is basically keep calm, carry on, we will eventually get our reward for acting responsibly in 2010, bringing stability to the country, bringing eventually economic growth to the country. I think that strategy is set in stone, and I think that most Liberal Democrats, in my view naively, still believe that in the end it could pay off. Other reasons why it might survive, well, who wants to take over that party before what looks like it could be a quite bad defeat. Anyway, you run the risk of looking as though you behaved treacherously. Much better if you're interested in leading the party, and there are a fair few people interested in leading the party, believe it or not, still. Much better to wait until after the election, I think, to make your move. Also, one has to ask what would be the point of replacing Nick Clegg if the party still intends to stay in coalition with the Conservatives. It seems to me illogical, really, to replace the man who is the symbol of your intention to stay the course, and then say you're going to stay the course. So, I think he's logically, anyway, probably safe. What the Liberal Democrats are destined to do then is to sort of grind out next year, basically, trying to differentiate from the Conservative party as much as possible when they can, and reminding the public of the achievements that they consider are theirs, of which there are, one could argue, a precious few, and a certain precious few that the public identify with them rather than with the Conservatives more generally, for example, reductions in taxation for people on lower incomes. I think their problem, however, is going to be, and it's a problem they've had all the time, they don't control any big portfolios. They made this decision that it will be wise not to get any of the big jobs in government to have, instead, the Deputy Prime Minister's job and Chief Secretary's of the Treasury. I think that has been a disaster, but you live and learn, and perhaps if they go into coalition another time, they won't make that mistake again. Whether they will face a wipeout at the general election, I think, is doubtful. Liberal Democrats tend to do better when they are incumbents, they tend to dig in quite well, and it's perfectly possible that even on just around 10% of the vote, they might still retain 25, 30 seats. I wouldn't absolutely bet on that, but I think they're fairly confident that it won't be a complete meltdown situation for them in the general election like it almost was in the European election. Moving on to Labour then. Labour, I think, are very disheartened if you talk to people in the Labour camp at the moment. They're very disappointed with the elections, but in some ways the elections, both the local elections and the European elections, didn't really tell Labour anything it didn't know or at least fear already, really. What was that? Well, UKIP appeals to some of the so-called left-behind voters, white-working class people, normally men without much education, who feel that the country's been going in the wrong direction since maybe the 1950s even, and would in some ways like the world to stop so they can get off. Everybody knew that, but I think the extent to which it was actually going to eat into Labour's vote was perhaps underestimated, so maybe there's a bit more concern about that now than there was before. Labour clearly knows for the polling that's been done around the election that it's not trusted yet on the economy. It also knows that its leader is not only not inspiring to voters but is actually off-putting to large sways of the electorate. It knows it still has difficulty in winning seats in the south of England, which is problematic because of course there are a lot of seats there, but it knows that it has London as this oasis, if you like, in the desert. And it's very interesting if you compare the situation in Britain with the situation in Ireland, our populist party, UKIP, comes nowhere in the big cities. Where it does best is in the small towns or the smaller cities out in the sticks, which is a complete reversal in some ways. You can argue that Sinn Fein has this ability to pick up seats in Dublin, but the populist equivalent we have, although it will be on the right rather than the left, doesn't manage to do that in Britain. London seems to be a UKIP free zone at the moment. Does all this mean that Ed Miliband is in trouble? Probably not. He's probably safe, partly because it's institutionally extremely difficult to unseat a Labour leader, partly because it's culturally very difficult for the Labour party to do that. It has a history of not getting rid of leaders, as we know, from 2007 to 2010, where most people knew that Gordon Brown was leading the party to a complete disaster and yet were unwilling, sadly, for David Miliband to plunge the knife into his back and do something about it. If parties were rational actors, which they're not, the Labour party may well try and dump him if they could find someone who was willing to take on the job or someone who was capable of taking on the job. They may well be someone like Yvette Cooper, current Shadow Home Secretary. I think some people would agree, would make a good job of it. However, whether she's willing to do it, it's another matter. So I think they'll stick with Ed Miliband. Ed Miliband can argue, I think, reasonably justifiably, that he has made some good calls in some important issues over the last few years. But the other reason is because Labour, still because of the quirks of the electoral system, and because it is actually running quite good organisation on the ground, still has a serious chance of finishing up as the largest party after the next election. There is this electoral bias in Britain, which means that the Conservative party still has to be at least six, seven percentage points ahead of Labour in an election to win an overall majority. And there was some hope over the weekend for Labour because of this big poll of marginal seats conducted by Lord Ashcroft, which showed Labour, if an election were held tomorrow, would take 83 seats from the Conservatives. They still seem to be ahead, more ahead in marginal seats than they are generally. So, beginning to wind up now on the Conservatives, well, the Conservatives have done an absolutely brilliant job of spinning the results of these elections, all credit to them. It seems as if almost they are the winners apart from UKIP. Actually, these results are very worrying for the Conservative party. Yes, they do show that UKIP is nibbling into the Labour vote as well, but it is still, I think, true to say that, in all probability, UKIP doing well at a general election would have more effect on the Conservative vote than it would have on the Labour vote, or if not the vote then on the Conservative seats. It is an indirect effect in that it is not as if UKIP will actually take any or many seats from the Conservatives, but what UKIP will do in perhaps up to 20 marginal seats is actually prevent the Conservatives from winning or even cause them to lose by taking some votes away from the Conservative candidate and giving them to UKIP and therefore allowing Labour to come through the middle. Now, at the moment, UKIP in opinion polls are around 14%, so they did 27% of the Euro elections, but I would caution against, and you will notice anyway, taking Euro election results and extrapolating to what people would do in a general election. If you ask people what they would do in a general election tomorrow, UKIP are on around 14%. Now, if the Conservatives cannot squeeze UKIP down, and Labour to some extent too, cannot squeeze UKIP down to beneath double figures, in other words, under 10%, then they are in big trouble. It is very likely that UKIP, if they get over 10%, will be causing the Conservatives either to lose seats to Labour in marginal constituencies or perhaps just simply prevent them from winning seats from Labour as well. So, if you look at opinion polls and ask people, well, okay, you voted UKIP in the European elections or the local elections, how likely are you to carry on voting UKIP in the general election next year? There are two answers to this. One is the British election study recently published results on this. 65% of people you say they are voting for UKIP say they are going to vote for UKIP and a general election in the year's time. So, if you say 14%, 65% of that is 9.1%. That's still in risky territory for the Conservatives. Ashcroff polling shows slightly fewer. That gets UKIP down to 6.3% general election, which would be just about manageable for the Conservatives. So, the Conservatives, I think, shouldn't panic, but they should be concerned. So, how best do they respond, talking of panic? Well, the most obvious, the most tempting way for the Conservative Party to respond is probably the worst thing they can do, and that is to shift towards UKIP, harden their policies and harden their rhetoric on the EU and on immigration in particular. Why is that a mistake? Well, A, it's difficult to see what more the Conservatives could do in this direction that's consonant with their international obligations. B, it would look opportunistic and probably inauthentic, given that Cameron still has this kind of liberal Conservative image about him. C, it would crowd out the main card that the Conservatives should be playing, which is the economy. And D, it's electorally risky as well, because it will put off well-healed, well-educated A-B voters, if you like, the Conservative need to hold on to and risk losing. And secondly, it would actually, I think, only end up driving those issues up the media and public agenda, making them more salient and therefore actually doing UKIP a favour. In other words, the more that the EU, the more that immigration in particular is in play, the better UKIP is going to do. So, for the Conservatives to actually increase the salience of those issues, I think would be not necessarily suicidal, but a mistake. Having said that, of course, Cameron's going to come under a huge amount of pressure to do precisely this, both from some of his MPs and from what I would call the party in the media in Britain. And, of course, Labour may well make the same mistake. There are a lot of Labour people saying now that they have to talk more about immigration. I don't think Labour will sell the pass on its promise not to hold an in-out referendum yet, but I think the Labour Party are sorely tempted to talk a little bit more about immigration to shore up as they see their support in some of their core areas. So, in conclusion, I think it's going to be quite a nasty year in British politics. I think we are going to see quite a xenophobic campaign waged on all sides, possibly. We're certainly going to see quite a lot of personal attacks, particularly on the Labour leader Ed Miliband from the Conservatives, who they regard as a trump card, if you like. And so what about the results? Well, I know it's a kind of mug's game to predict, but it would be a little bit unfair to come here and say all this without giving you at least my guess on what's going to happen. If you look at the fundamentals, I think we can say this, it's extremely difficult for incumbent governments in the UK to increase their vote share from one general election to another. It's possible, but it's difficult to do, particularly when real wages have been under such pressure for so long. On the other hand, it's difficult for an opposition in Britain to turn things around after just one turn. Again, it's possible, but it's very difficult. It's especially difficult for an opposition which is not trusted as much as the government on the economy, and which has a leader who is ranked far more poorly than the Prime Minister himself. So the logical conclusion, especially when you add in the fact that the long-term share of the vote taken by the two biggest parties has been declining over time. You look at the fact that the Liberal Democrats are going nowhere, but UKIP are coming up. I think the logical conclusion is we will have another hung parliament and that the Conservatives will probably, but Labour possibly be the largest party in that hung parliament with the Liberal Democrats still in there and possibly one or maybe even more UKIP MPs. That's my best guess, but you have of course time now to argue against that and give your own views. Thank you. Thank you very much.