The Times have a new YouGov poll this morning, carried out after Theresa May’s Brexit speech. Overall, it looks as if the PM has passed her first Brexit test – a majority of the public support the sort of Brexit she is seeking to achieve. Whether they support the sort of Brexit she actually manages to get other EU countries to agree to once negotiations are complete is, of course, a different matter.

YouGov asked respondents if they agreed with some of the key negotiation points May set out: many of these were uncontroversial (an overwhelming majority of people wanted UK control of immigration, an open border with Ireland, the rights of existing immigrations to be protected and continued co-operation on security). Most of these are obvious though – the two more controversial points were the confirmation that Britain would leave the single market and the customs union. A majority of people supported both, but it was split very much among pro-EU and anti-EU lines: a huge majority of Leave voters thought it was the right thing to do, but Remain voters tended to think it was wrong to leave the single market and were split over the customs union.

Looking at a list of specific measures is not necessarily a good way of measuring support for May’s stance anyway. Most of us won’t tot up the individual details, people tend to judge the overall package. Asked about May’s Brexit plan as a whole, there was a clear thumbs up. 55% think it would be good for Britain; only 19% think it would be bad. 62% think it would respect the referendum result and by 53% to 26% people say that they would be happy with the outcome.

While people like what May is seeking, that doesn’t mean they think it is actually achievable. While the public do express confidence in May’s negotiating ability (by 47% to 38%), only 20% of people think that other EU countries will agree to what she wants. Only time will tell how the public react to whatever EU deal May actually manages to get.

The poll also asked voting intention. Topline figures were CON 42%, LAB 25%, LDEM 11%, UKIP 12%, putting the Tories back up to a seventeen point lead. As ever it is only one poll, so don’t read too much into that huge lead: it may be that May setting out a clearer route forward for Brexit (and the good press she got yesterday) has given the Tories a boost… or it may just be normal random variation. Full tabs are here


584 Responses to “YouGov polling on Theresa May’s Brexit speech”

1 8 9 10 11 12
  1. So far as I can tell, there are two issues that “women” have with Trump.

    Firstly the groping remarks he was recorded as having made. These were of course roundly condemned by everyone from Mike Pence to Theresa May, and to some extent disavowed by Trump (although not strongly enough IMHO – downplayed rather than apologized for). These remarks were I think seen through the prism of Trump’s habit of marrying models much younger than himself, a habit strongly disapproved of by feminists because they feel it smacks of objectification and ownership rather than a mutally respectful relationship (although of course only Trump and his wives know the truth of what their relationships were/are based on).

    The chorus of disapproval was then crystallized by the emergence of women willing to make allegations against Trump. This is always a difficult area, as there is a common perception that once a celebrity gets the Black Dot, it is open season to accuse them of all and sundry. My professional experience leads me to think that the cynicism is often misplaced. However, it is interesting to compare the treatment of Trump by the left with their views on, say, Michael Jackson, Julian Assange or Bill Clinton. Or even, more egregiously, Roman Polanski. Not that many million women marches about those chaps.

    Secondly, and more fundamentally, there is the question of Roe vs Wade. The greatest threat from Trump that liberals in the US perceive, I think, is the abliity to nominate SC justices. Circumstances have conspired to allow Trump the ability to potentially reverse Roe vs Wade in the next four years. Interestingly it doesn’t seem to be an issue where he has a long history of ideological commitment, but it will be much the line of least resistance to give conservatives the justices they demand.

    This for me is where the debate gets quite awkward. It is common for pro-choice advocates to asssume that there is a consensus that this is just a women’s rights issue, and that to be pro-life is therefore to be anti-women. I think we detected quite a bit of that in the speeches and banners at the inaugeration protests.

    But actually, there are a great many women who are pro-life, for a variety of reasons. And of course a great many men are pro-choice. Pro-lifers tend not to see it as a gender issue, but as a human rights issue.

    The idea that, for example, Theresa May “as a woman” should travel to Washington and attack Trump for taking a pro-life position, or to lobby him to appoint judges that would uphold Roe vs Wade, is ridiculous. It would be seen, rightly, as unwarranted interference in US domestic affairs.

    To some extent I see the protests against Trump as a continuation of a political civil war that has been raging for decades in America across a range of equality issues with abortion poisoning the well.

  2. ALEC

    Fair point….
    ………………
    PETER CAIRNS (SNP)

    “And lets make a point of some pillocks on Facebook talking nonsense about blowing up the Whitehouse just because the new guy in it spent two years egging on crowds of his supporters to chant “Lock her up lock her Up!!!”

    “I mean is the best you people can do, when it’s clear the man you support doesn’t have the kind of support you think he should hav,e to lambast all who oppose him by characterising them all as like those at the lunatic fringe”
    ______

    First point…Madonnas blowing up the White House plot was not made on facebook, it was said in front of demonstrators in Washington and broadcast live to millions,

    Second point…What do you mean by “You people”? and the man you support doesn’t have the support you think he has?

    The problem is people like you can’t accept the democratic process when it goes against your own views. You talk about the lunatic fringe…yeah plenty of them about when referendums don’t go the way some would had wanted…

  3. @ToH

    “Despite all the caveats above, the voters in the YouGov poll seem to clearly support May’s approach to negotiations even though they don’t think she will achieve all aims. This seems to be something you don’t understand. I think that’s because the leave vote was as much about regaining sovereignty as it was about controlling immigration. If you accept that, then it all makes sense, the voters accept that leaving fully will have an initial adverse effect on the economy but are prepared to put up with that to leave the EU. May has appealed to the people’s patriotism and the voters seem to be responding. If the negotiations go badly I agree with those who have said that they do not think this will necessary effect on voting support for the government. I think the voters will blame the EU negotiators and harden anti EU feeling.”

    ——–

    Nothing in my post suggests I don’t understand what you are saying. I made one statement of fact concerning salience of immigration, and then added the opinion that this is prolly cause peeps blame immigration for various things. Guymonde pointed out voters expect those things to worsen, which seems opposite to the effect of reducing immigration, unless indeed they think she’ll fail to achieve many of her goals.

    Saying that it might be instead mostly about Sovereignty doesn’t really fit with the polling on salience of immigration, as opposed to sovereignty. But sovereignty might be a proxy for immigration anyway…

  4. CARFREW
    @AC
    “Lol, did you miss The Donald’s “second amendment” quip??”
    _________

    He was just trying to get gun lobby on his side….

  5. @AC

    Lol, well that makes it ok then!! And Madonna might be doing the same of course…

  6. Getting people on her side, I mean…

  7. PETE B

    “I believe that there were some demonstrations by some women in England about Trump’s unfortunate sexist remarks. I wonder whether they demonstrated about the mass rapes in Rotherham and elsewhere? If not, why not?”
    __________

    The bridges and public squares across the UK were certainly deprived of any demonstrations over the mass rapes in Rotherham. I suspect the vast majority who are supposedly protesting against Trump’s sexist remarks in the UK have some other agenda…maybe the price if Tupperware sounds too much like Trump? or it might be the candidate they supported lost.

  8. “and that this has to work to the benefit of the Lib Dems who are articulating a clear pro-European message.”

    ———

    A party might talk a good pro-EU game, but you have to contrast that with whether their actions in practice wound up assisting Brexit…

  9. CARFREW

    Trump said a lot of stuff during the campaign that was well out of order. I disagree with the guy over his Pro Israel waffle, his approach to China regarding trade and building a wall across the US Mexico border although illegal immigration in the US is a big problem.

    We need to look at this in rationally….what was the alternative to Trump?

  10. @S Thomas

    The inelegant wording is less important that the statement that is completely at variance with the facts.

  11. Allan Christie,

    “The problem is people like you can’t accept the democratic process when it goes against your own views.”

    I am fully aware of the democratic process and nowhere does it say “Winner Takes all!”

    I’ve spend forty years patiently listening to Bexiteers and their ilk talking about there being “No Democracy” in this country because we were in the EU and they didn’t like it.

    The minute the result goes your way anyone who doesn’t jump for joy “Isn’t backing Britain!” and should just shut up.

    I read a fair bit about todays bust up over inauguration crowd numbers and the Whitehouse and Trump supporters response has been pathetic.

    It hardly matters, if at all, who got the biggest crowd and it’s probably to be expected that as Obama was the first coloured President and as Trump has historic low levels of approval he would get a lower crowd.

    But to start by saying it was the biggest ever with no evidence, and apparently not even checking for any, and then responding to evidence that it was lower by attacking the press is just idiotic behaviour.

    Fact; a lot of people world wide don’t like Trump or what he stands for and if they are lucky enough to live in a Democracy will be able and if they want will say so.

    They have an absolute right to say so and indeed some might argue a duty.

    To say otherwise shows a complete lack of both understanding democracy and regard for it.

    Be it Trump supporters or the Leave side her, your not just bad losers when you don’t get your way, your bad winners too, because you expect those you beat to capitulate and accept the righteousness of your cause.

    Peter.

  12. Robin

    Dont take issue with me because you dont like it. look it up. it is published by bloomberg based on the EC own facts.

    if you read it i think it means that if you add all contributions (minus germany) and then take away all the payments out the total is less than what the uk contributes.

    Not at variance with the facts just at variance with what you wish the facts to be.

  13. PETER CAIRNS SNP

    “I am fully aware of the democratic process and nowhere does it say “Winner Takes all!”

    “I’ve spend forty years patiently listening to Bexiteers and their ilk talking about there being “No Democracy” in this country because we were in the EU and they didn’t like it”

    “The minute the result goes your way anyone who doesn’t jump for joy “Isn’t backing Britain!” and should just shut up”
    _________

    Ok so presumably you will come to the same conclusions if Scotland votes for independence..you know winner takes all but not every region of Scotland votes to leave the UK…nationalists talking of no democracy because the rUK voted differently and in the event of Scottish independence anyone who doesn’t jump for joy over independence isn’t backing Scotland and should just shut up.

    Yeah I kind of see where you’re coming from.

  14. Allen Christie

    “We need to look at this rationally what was the alternative to Trump.”

    Personally I think the entity that is Trumps hair could have given him a good run for his money.

  15. ARTAIR
    “Where were the marches when Clinton was using his position to sexually abuse his young staff members? Not a one as I remember?”
    ________

    They were toasting Clinton in Cuba. Did wonders for the cigar industry . ;-)

  16. ““Where were the marches when Clinton was using his position to sexually abuse his young staff members?”

    Where has consensual sex with a 22 year old been sexual abuse, other than perhaps Tehran?

    Peter.

  17. ARTAIR

    @”Where were the marches when Clinton was using his position to sexually abuse his young staff members? Not a one as I remember?”

    Yeah-but he’s a Democrat .

  18. @AC

    “We need to look at this in rationally….what was the alternative to Trump?”

    —————

    Yes, I wasn’t arguing for or against Trump. I mean, I don’t think we know his policy on Southern Rail yet, etc. Just helping with the “look at this rationally” thing you were on about, and reminding you of summat relevant, to set alongside the Madonna thing.

  19. PETER CAIRNS

    @”Where has consensual sex with a 22 year old been sexual abuse, other than perhaps Tehran?”

    Now THAT IS an interesting response.

    No abuse of the power of the Presidency eh Peter.?

    Just normal day in the Clinton Oval Office, chatting with an intern?

    …..and anyway Old Bill said it wasn’t sexual intercourse -just an exchange of cigars.

  20. Allan Christie,

    “Ok so presumably you will come to the same conclusions if Scotland votes for independence..you know winner takes all but not every region of Scotland votes to leave the UK…”

    Pretty much.

    As with Trump being President, or Brexit, or Independence referendum or indeed a future one, won or lost, I would accept both the result and the right of people who didn’t agree with it to continue to argue it was the wrong decision and to campaign to reverse it.

    That’s Democracy.

    Complaining about those who disagree or don’t like the result saying so, shows, that like so many who talk about democracy, your not a democrat your a populist.

    You don’t believe in Democracy;
    Rule by majority consent for the good of all.

    You believe in populism;
    That majority rule is the right to rule all.

    Peter.

  21. God, what a dire thread this is. AW, can’t you find something to write about to kick off a new one?

  22. I’ve been travelling from a snowy Switzerland to a nearly as snowy Spain over the week-end so only just catching up here, but slightly surprised that fellow masochists haven’t linked to the SC Future judgments page, which gives the streaming link [from 2017-01-24 09:30 UTC] for the result and informs us that all 13 supremes will be in attendance, with 1st the Miller & Co result then the two related NI cases.

    Nobody seems to have invited predictions on the results yet, but mine would be that HMG loses all three, with the Westminster Parliament being required to attest that the circumstances are not usual should the Scottish Parliament refuse to agree to whatever it is that the Westminster Parliament proposes should happen next.

    Even with Stormont awaiting a fresh NI GE, I anticipate that Westminster will be offered the choice of resiling the Belfast Agreement or granting an NI-only referendum should HMG propose a hard border between NI and the RoI.

  23. Allan Christie

    Are you Glory Plopwell in disguise? ????

  24. Something

    That is an excellent post too! Hear hear!

  25. Ha ha ha!

    Autocorrect strikes again Somerjohn!

  26. @Barbanenzero

    Highly unlikely.

    There will be no hard border anywhere.

  27. JONESINBANGOR
    There will be no hard border anywhere.

    Do you have any evidence for that assertion?

  28. PS 11 not 13 supremes!

  29. @bz

    I expect the UK Govt to lose their appeal but the SC will rule that notwithstanding the incorporation of the Sewell Convention into statute it is for HMG to decide whether it applies. I don’t know.enough about the NI case to have a view!

    And for a bit of fun crappie all here is the full verbatim transcript.of Trump ‘s – completely barmy -speech at the CIA

    http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/full-text-trump-pence-remarks-cia-headquarters-233978

  30. Colin,

    Never liked Bill Clinton much or Hilary for that matter , but having an extra marital affair with someone younger at the office isn’t a criminal offence let alone one as serious as sexual abuse.

    Lots of people in power oddly seem attractive to younger people, probably more the power than the individual, and yes people in power whether through ego or lust exploit it.

    But I wouldn’t expect anyone to march about it, it might be sleazy but it’s not criminal and certainly not a political issue.

    Besides for the best part of three years Republicans on Capital Hill tried to make it an impeachment issue and you surely don’t believe that was all about morality and nothing to do with Party Politics.

    All the polling of this election shows an America more deeply divided than ever before and what we are seeing is that coming to the fore.

    Responding to criticism of DonaldTrump with am overblown attack on Bill Clinton or linking womens response to Trump to Rotherham is just petty tit for tat.

    We’re getting to the level of “My dads Bigger than Your dad!”

    Peter.

  31. @Neil A

    I am not sure whether you are actually writing in defence of Trump but whatever you are doing, it is, as one would expect from you reasoned and fair. My reaction to it was that what women and men ought to have against Trump is a) that he is an appalling individual and b) he is a dangerously ill-informed, vindictive and unreliable one.

    To be honest I had no particular views about Trump at all until I happened to be in Canada shortly before he election and was subjected to almost wall to wall coverage of him, I was convinced by some (not all) of the women who came out against him, it was completely consistent with what he was taped as saying, and probably of a piece with the way a lot of men behave (as you point out). What was equally unusual was the way he treated men (as per the lewd insults he was prepared to trade during the primaries), the way he seemed to have absolutely no regard for truth or even consistency (one moment the Mexicans are rapist and worse, the next moment they are a great people and he is getting on fine with their president), and his willingness to denigrate his accusers (they were far too ugly for him to trouble them), All this was allied to his tax affairs (would we elect someone who boasted he was too smart to pay taxes), his treatment of his Polish workers (they took him to court for exploiting them, they won on a number of counts and he still hasn;t paid them), his chequered business career (would a great business man really be bankrupt after being given such a start), and his fraudulent university.

    Actually people can be, on many or even most counts, bad people but still excellent politicians, Clinton as you point out was somewhat flawed. So too was LLoyd George. Others who are blameless are a bit of a disaster, So it may be Trump is what the world needs. That said he is very high risk. What amazed me was his inability to stick to a policy. HIs advisers had arranged for him to make a speech at Gettysburg and clearly this called for a statesmanlike address. So he began but to my amazement after what seemed to me a promising two minutes or so he launched into a vindictive rant against the women who had accused him and threats as to how he was going to sue them once he was elected, (I was similarly surprised when he said he was going to put Hilary Clinton in jail). Equally surprising was his apparent inability to debate any policy point on its merits. He had certain strong opinions (that the right way to take Mosul for example was through a sneak attack) but his basic approach was simply to assert things and if necessary to back them up with ‘facts’ that were certainly far from factual. So overall I got the impression of an unreliable, narcissicistic vindictive individual who wasn’t bothered to think through issues and felt somehow that the world would turn out to be the way he wanted it to be.

    He may be a great president but if so, probably not in the way he promised. I can’t see that appointing millionaires and relatives to top jobs is doing much towards draining the swamp. I am not convinced that taking America back to fossil fuels is going to do much for jobs (there are more in Green energy). And I don’t think that telling the American people lies is empowering them either.

    What is interesting as this is clearly at risk of entering moderation is that people in a sense knew all of this and voted for him nevertheless.

  32. That should be “fun for all” , not sure what autocorrect had in mind!

  33. HIRETON
    I expect the UK Govt to lose their appeal but the SC will rule that notwithstanding the incorporation of the Sewell Convention into statute it is for HMG to decide whether it applies. I don’t know.enough about the NI case to have a view!

    You may be right re the Sewel convention, but as it’s written into the Scotland Act 2016 under Constitutional arrangements in PART 2A, presumably a Westminster parliament assertion of non-normality or perhaps repeal of the act will be needed. That, of course, is assuming that the SC will rule that the Westminster parliament remains sovereign. It would inconsistent to put it mildly if HMG cannot exercise the royal prerogative to leave the EU but can amend the Scotland Act without parliamentary approval.

    Either way, it will hardly endear HMG to many Scots.

  34. Andrew111

    Thanks. It sometimes feels as if I’m posting into a vacuum, so good to hear that I’m not alone.

    I find Trump too depressing to enjoy posting about him: the truth is self-evident (except to him, seemingly). Charles has put it well.

    What is even more depressing is the haste with which our PM is rushing across the Atlantic to make obeisance at the court of the King of Mischief. Is that what our country has come to?

  35. Charles,

    “What is interesting as this is clearly at risk of entering moderation is that people in a sense knew all of this and voted for him nevertheless.”

    Perhaps, given a decade of wage stagnation or worse for Blue Collar America, while Bankers got richer and politicians bickered, the one think they heard Trump say was;

    “What have you got to lose!”

    During the referendum we saw something similar, lots of working class Scots who had long given up in voting in UK elections voting for Independence because for them it was worth the risk because anything was better than this.

    Peter.

  36. PETER CAIRNS

    Weasel words old chap.

    They’re both as bad as each other-using positions of power & authority to abuse females subject to that power & authority.

    So protesting about one of them & not about the other becomes a protest about the individual & not the abuse.

    And since these are POTUS -thats good old fashioned partisan politics.

  37. CHARLES

    @”What is interesting as this is clearly at risk of entering moderation is that people in a sense knew all of this and voted for him nevertheless.”

    It is interesting. Doesn’t it demonstrate how much people vote for what they think will be good for them & their families-rather than for someone else.

    Selfish? perhaps. But I remember a tv news reporter wandering around the Rust Belt asking women if they were concerned about DT’s alleged reputation. The answers could be summarised as -Yes-but that can be changed when he is in office-our situation can’t unless he is.

  38. Colin
    Spot on. I’ve been trying to stay out of this one but I agree with you.

    Peter Cairns
    The ‘what have you got to lose’ idea might also have been one of the motivators of the Brexit vote for some.

  39. Somerjohn,

    I am sure you also noticed this:

    http://www.politico.eu/article/theresa-may-attacks-john-kerry-rebuke-of-israel-netanyahu-obama-trump-united-states/

    And after we had just voted against West Bank settlements again!

    It is hard to get a word in edgeways sometimes on here. I come on again after a few hours to see if there might have been an opinion poll or something and have to wade through several pages of [people] congratulating each other! And endless whataboutery….

  40. Somerjohn

    I like your posts too. Keep them coming!

  41. I knew King of Mischief sounded odd. Lord of Misrule is what I meant. Of course.

  42. @Colin

    I agree with you and Peter Cairns as to why they did it. In their position I would have wanted change, believed I had little to lose and would have wanted to better myself. I don;t think I would have believed that Trump was the man to do it for me. I think they genuinely do and that also is interesting.

  43. Colin,

    “So protesting about one of them & not about the other becomes a protest about the individual & not the abuse.”

    Wrong.

    They both may be nasty pieces of work but only one of them seems to want to translate that nastiness into policy.

    Clinton may have been a philanderer but he wasn’t in danger of changing the law to allow it.

    I can understand the NRA protesting against Obama and not wanting either Clinton because for them there was a danger to their right to bare arms.

    That isn’t partisan politics either, women who fear changes to their status protesting against Trump, gun owners who fear changes to their rights protesting against Obama, because the debate is over a clear policy divide.

    Using Lewinsky to get at Clinton because you don’t like a democratic in the Whitehouse is Partisan, backing the Birther Movement because you don’t like Obamacare is Partisan Politics.

    2m people marching against the policies of the incoming President because they don’t like them isn’t Partisan and it has nothing to do with how lax the morals of a President twenty years ago were.

    Trying to muddy the waters over protest against Trumps policies by dragging up Clintons past transgressions…now that’s Partisan politics.

    Peter.

  44. @ 9.52 pm

    The good steady citizens of Aberdeen were just as much taken in by Trump`s exaggerated claims as were the downtrodden workers in the USA.

    A majority really believed his leisure development would create 1000-plus permanent jobs.

    Now that they know Trump has only 100 employees and many of them are laid off when the golf course closes down in winter, they have become critics.

  45. Peter
    Clinton was a philander, so what you say and to a degree I agree with you. But if it’s ok for Clinton, it’s ok for Trump. It certainly did Hollande in France no harms. His ratings actually improved for a while.

    The serious charge against Clinton was that lied about it. The cover up is the serious bit as Nixon discovered. But Clinton got away with it, the slippery fish.

  46. @Hireton –

    That’s not what I am saying. We should have had a referendum at the time of taking us in as it had such a huge constitutional impact. And that was the point of my post.

    And it was the argument at the time, along with the warning of the long-term consequences which EUphiles are now complaining about.

  47. @Charles,

    You are quite right, I am not remotely defending Trump. I think the man is a valueless schill, and I am quite fearful for the word. I am not certain whether I’m more of afraid of what he’ll do (dismantle healthcare, break the budget, contribute to climate change) or what he might not do (support NATO, challenge Russian oppression, come to the aid of developing countries that need help, money and leadership from the US).

    However, I do think from a very narrow perspective of the UK’s chances of a decent trading relationship with the USA, he’s probably a better bet than Clinton. That isn’t to say I think that overall he’s a better option for the UK, just in relation to trade relations.

    And I am not even defending his immorality. I think the things he was recorded saying reveal a pretty awful personality. But what he was in essence saying is that if you’re rich, powerful and/or famous women will give in to your advances. So, yes, there is a parallel with Clinton. And with Clarence Thomas, and with all sorts of other figures over the years who have been accused of treating the women around them in their workplace as starstruck pieces of meat.

    I was simply musing on the differential morality that I observe in which particular figures people choose to attack, and those they don’t.

    Because of my personal and professional background, the Roman Polanski case has always bothered the hell out of me. Any celebrity who is in his corner, frankly, has forfeit the right to speak out against any other man.

  48. “Clinton was a philander, so what you say and to a degree I agree with you. But if it’s ok for Clinton, it’s ok for Trump. ”

    The allegation against Trump is that he assaults women sexually not that he is a philanderer. Whether he is or not will be tested in the lawsuit which has been launched against him. The attempt to deflect from this allegation by equating philandering and sexual assualt by roc men on this site is interesting.

  49. Interesting to see the Trump attack on the media tonight, on multiple fronts. His press officer directly attacked the media over reports of numbers attending the ceremony, while Trump himself claimed any dispute between him and the CIA was got up by the media. In both cases, these are outright l!es. Meanwhile, in another l!e, his spokeswoman has now confirmed that he won’t release his tax returns, despite numerous promises to the contrary during the campaign.

    I think we can see a clear strategy hear, which is to try to effectively take down the mainstream media. This is a concerted campaign to try to wrest authority from established reporting organisations, and it’s clear that Trump can only operate successfully in a world where facts are ignored.

    The stakes here really are very high, as it is critical that voters have some realistic understanding of what their leaders are saying and doing. This is going to be a fascinating battle to watch.

  50. Alec
    “This is a concerted campaign to try to wrest authority from established reporting organisations…”

    If this is true, and it might well be, taken together with his seeming addiction to Twitter, I wonder if we will see an ‘internet war’? Trump and his sympathisers posting one lot of ‘dubious news’ followed by opponents doing the same?

    There’s an old phrase about not believing everything that’s in the papers. It seems even more true about the internet, and social media in particular.

1 8 9 10 11 12