suggesting it should? well, they could give us some of the licence fee. would you like that? oh, i don t know. it is very difficult to please everyone all the time. but i m interested, that was a throwaway remark, but it seems to me it was not entirely injest, because i m sure you know the culture secretary this week said that the licence fee is not a long term, sustainable model, so is itv interested in a different type of licence fee, which is notjust given to the bbc? honestly, that is a job for the bbc to worry about. what is without doubt is that the bbc is incredibly important, vital to the broadcasting ecology, and a strong bbc is good for the country, and good for other broadcasters. you know, healthy competition between us is a good thing, and i want the bbc to thrive, just as itv does. you want it to thrive, but do you think it can and it should thrive with its current funding model?
as 0fcom is suggesting it should? well, they could give us some of the licence fee. would you like that? oh, well, i don t know. it s very difficult to please everyone all the time. but i m interested, that was a throwaway remark, but it seems to me it wasn t entirely injest, because i m sure you know the culture secretary this week said that the licence fee is not a long term, sustainable model, so is itv interested in a different type of licence fee, which is notjust given to the bbc? honestly, that s a job for the bbc to worry about. what is without doubt is that the bbc is incredibly important, vital to the broadcasting ecology, and a strong bbc is good for the country and good for other broadcasters. you know, healthy competition between us is a good thing, and i want the bbc to thrive, just as itv does. you want it to thrive, but do you think it can and it should thrive with its current funding model? i don t know. i m sure there are legions of people in this building thinking ab
don t look to us as a great friend or somebody they can rely on? what does that mean for our future? i think what donald trump doesn t appear to understand in any of this is not just that this is the rules-based international order that we built, but this is the rules-based international order that we actually wrote. it works in our favor. it works in the favor of liberal democracies around the globe. it allows for free trade, it allows for partnership across the board. this is what the american this is what our american system of international relations has been predicated upon since the end of world war ii. what vladimir putin wants to replace it with is something that does not at all resemble what has allows us to thrive, what has allowed us with our soft power to spread our values around the world, and what has allowed us to flourish as an economy.
this is what our american system of international relations has been predicated upon since the end of world war ii what vladimir putin wants to replace it with is something that does not at all resemble what has allows us to thrive, what has allowed us with our soft power to spread our values around the world, and what has allowed us to flourish as an economy. donald trump is trying to tear that down. what s the reaction like in canada on the ground? the reaction is people are taken aback by the idea that the united states which has played a really big role in the g7 and promoting free trade and has been a country that people look to for leadership that they re stepping away from that. i think a lot of u.s. officials i ve talked to, say they don t know what comes next. if the u.s. backs out and says