X Close

Doctor Who collapse shows the BBC is out of ideas

Ratings have plummeted during Ncuti Gatwa’s time as the Doctor. Credit: Doctor Who/IMDB

Ratings have plummeted during Ncuti Gatwa’s time as the Doctor. Credit: Doctor Who/IMDB

June 11 2026 - 10:51am

“Don’t watch. Turn off the TV. Go and touch grass, please, for God’s sake.” I sometimes wonder what Ncuti Gatwa was trying to achieve when he scolded Doctor Who fans for their entire objections to the weepy, preachy and hyperactive tone of recent seasons. At any rate, it was advice that many people took. Gatwa’s tenure saw the show’s ratings continue their inexorable decline. Some episodes in his final series drew fewer than three million viewers, a far cry from the glory days of the post-2005 revival, when episodes routinely drew three or even four times that many.

Now it has emerged that the decline is continuing further. Yesterday, the BBC announced that the planned Christmas special for 2026 will not be made. Russell T Davies appears to have pulled out as has the show’s production company, and there has been speculation that this is partly because few high-profile names want to play the role of the Doctor.

Reading between the lines of the BBC statement, with its talk of plans to “invest in the long-term future of the show”, Doctor Who might be headed for a sustained hiatus. This would not be unprecedented; it did not air at all between 1989 and 2005. But it’s clearly a tacit admission that Doctor Who is in something approaching a crisis. The behind-the-scenes creatives have been getting a great deal wrong for a long time, and the audience has noticed.

The decline comes within the context of tough times for the BBC. Increasingly outgunned financially and creatively by the streaming behemoths, its output feels derivative and stale. Dramas made by the Corporation are overwrought and didactic, still reliant for effect on moody lighting and a drained-out color palette, tricks that were innovative in 2010 but now just seem dated. The kitsch and trivial light entertainment is indistinguishable from that put out by commercial rivals and it hardly feels like the Corporation understands the viewing public.

Nowhere is this more prevalent than with Doctor Who, but its problems also come down to its structure. As fans have pointed out, the show is now built on finger-wagging storylines, poor acting and writing, attacks on established backstory, and a general air of emotional excess — all of which are well-established. Less frequently discussed, perhaps, is the question of what happens next.

The best option for the BBC is also the easiest: do nothing and put the show on hiatus. Put the old police box in storage; switch off the Cybermen and park the Daleks at the bottom of the stairs. Over the last few years, the whole series has felt exhaustingly histrionic, constantly raising the stakes and insisting on its own importance with portentous dialogue, bogged down in its own mythology. Pressing pause for a few years would provide an opportunity for a “soft reset”.

A new team of writers could quietly unpick some of the more silly changes to the lore made by recent showrunners and bring back a more low-key, low-stakes, cerebral version of Doctor Who, in the old style. This could be a broader remedy for the BBC. Rather than chasing the viewing figures of giant streaming companies by rinsing out established brands with endless cheap series, the Corporation could regroup and focus on improving the quality to build a sustained viewership.

Part of the appeal of the programme was always its celebration of a distinctly British type of eccentric; the lonely traveller in time and space, brilliant and eternally curious but also peculiar and sometimes cantankerous. Perhaps that archetype is now too distant — too alien — to contemporary viewers. But it is surely worth a try.


Niall Gooch is a public sector worker and occasional writer who lives in Kent.

niall_gooch

China is threatening America in the AI race

Reports sugget Zhipu AI  has released a new model that can rival leading US systems. Credit: Getty

Reports sugget Zhipu AI has released a new model that can rival leading US systems. Credit: Getty

July 1 2026 - 10:18am

China is trying to catch up with America on artificial intelligence. The Wall Street Journal has reported that Zhipu AI — one of China’s six “AI tiger” LLMs — has released a new model that can rival leading US systems, including Anthropic’s Mythos, in cybersecurity tasks such as pinpointing security bugs. While this marks a milestone in China’s drive to catch up with Western AI capabilities, strong performance on a single benchmark does not mean it has taken the lead. Chinese models still lag behind their Western counterparts in broader capabilities, such as autonomous operation. Skepticism is therefore warranted before resorting to hysterical conclusions, but complacency about the geopolitical implications of China’s AI advances would be an even greater mistake.

On the infrastructure side, Chinese AI is still constrained by access to advanced chips, with American labs way ahead in computing capacity as well as investment. Analysis from earlier this year suggests that Chinese models are likely to be at least a few months behind those in the US. But they are still continuing to make progress, or that the geopolitical importance of AI will be decided only by whose LLM has ventured deeper into the technological frontier. The practical applications of AI, countries’ to capture foreign markets, and the application of AI into the real economy will matter just as much.

Here, China may hold an advantage. As with its dominance across many critical supply chains, Beijing may not need to produce the most advanced AI systems — only those that are affordable and widely deployable. In doing so, it could consolidate global influence by supplying functional, low-cost AI at scale.

Beijing seems to be pursuing exactly that path, developing an AI “open-source” strategy that offers affordable, widely available AI models for companies and individuals to use and modify as they wish. The production of the DeepSeek AI model, which matched the performance of Silicon Valley tools such as ChatGPT at a fraction of the cost for users, created goodwill among Chinese models with developers.

The four most popular models on OpenRouter, an AI hardware platform for developers, are now all Chinese. The goal for China is not only to win the frontier-model race, but to make its systems the default layer of AI adoption across industries and global markets. For most economies, the choice is increasingly between an affordable tool they can deploy now and a more robust one that may be out of reach.

And while the countries adopting Chinese models may be exposed to political pressure and cyber threats from Beijing, safer and more capable alternatives matter little if they are unaffordable. American AI companies are already under pressure to monetize products whose operating costs are rising. If Chinese open-source models become the cheap default for startups, universities, governments and businesses across the developing world, then America’s AI lead will be eroded from below.

Perhaps more concerning for America in the long run is how AI can give Chinese manufacturing even more strength, through the ongoing integration of AI as a general-purpose technology. China’s new Five-Year Plan mentioned AI more than 50 times and includes an “AI+” action plan aimed at spreading AI across the economy.

Beijing has been pioneering automation of its critical infrastructure for years, with promising recent results in increasing warplane production capacity. In that regard, China’s open-model strategy and manufacturing dominance will reinforce each other. Cheap, adaptable models accelerate deployment across the real economy while those deployments generate real-world data and use cases that can feed back into further model improvement.

The United States should not dismiss the importance of its lead in the AI race. That lead worries Beijing, not least because a more automated Chinese economy would also become more vulnerable to AI-generated cyber threats. But nor should Washington assume that China cannot catch up with American capabilities over time.

This AI competition represents part of a broader struggle over tech supply chains and geopolitical influence. Decisions over whether to adopt US or Chinese models could produce a more fragmented global reality, with different regions relying on different cloud providers, chips and security structures. The result will likely be a global economy which is divided into competing spheres, rather than one which produces a single winner.


Miquel Vila is a political and geopolitical risk consultant focusing on industrial strategy, critical infrastructure and global supply chains.

miquelvilam