X Close

Doctor Who lost its way years before Ncuti Gatwa

Ncuti Gatwa's Doctor lacked gravitas and mystery. Credit: BBC

Ncuti Gatwa's Doctor lacked gravitas and mystery. Credit: BBC

June 3 2025 - 10:00am

The first episode of Doctor Who I can ever remember watching involved Third Doctor Jon Pertwee rushing around a quarry in Wales, trying to see off an infestation of giant man-killing maggots that had been accidentally created by an evil AI. It was part of The Green Death, a well-regarded serial from 1973. By the time I watched it in the early Nineties, it was already 20 years old and the special effects had not aged especially well. But it was unsettling, odd and compelling, and its emotional impact was heightened rather than lessened by the restraint of the storytelling.

Not long ago, I tried to watch some of the most recent series, featuring Ncuti Gatwa as the Doctor. I’m not averse to New Who: I watched pretty regularly in the early days of the 2005 revival, when Messrs Eccleston, Tennant and Smith were doing their thing. But Doctor Who is barely watchable now. Amid the justified complaints about the strident, self-righteous, and relentless progressive messaging — Gatwa told those who disagreed with him politically not to watch the program, an instruction which several million people have apparently followed — it’s easy to overlook the fact that over the last decade or so, the quality has collapsed.

Gatwa left the show after last weekend’s finale, but it’s worth remembering how his Doctor had none of the gravitas or other-worldly mystery projected by many previous incumbents. Indeed, he barely seems like an adult at all, with his total lack of emotional restraint and hyperactive mannerisms. The plots lacked any sense of suspense or tension. What drama there was felt overwrought and trite.

This was not the case in those first few series of the new era. Several of the best episodes from the 2000s — Blink, most obviously, with the genuinely frightening Weeping Angels, but also The Empty Child, Dalek and Midnight — would work well as one-off ghost stories or tales of the macabre in their own right. Even the more conventional episodes had a sense of pace and verve that has been missing from Doctor Who for a very long time.

An honest accounting of the current state of the show has to reckon with this reality. It’s very easy for defenders of the current iteration — a dwindling band outside the professional boosters in the media and allies of the current creative team — to complain about “review bombing” by Right-wing mischief-makers. But the truth is that, as those defenders themselves often assert, there has always been a liberal bent to the post-2005 version of the show, and this was tolerated by the fanbase.

Think of the sexually ambiguous Captain Jack, or the unsubtle political allegory behind an episode like 2008’s Turn Left, which showed a British nationalist government interning non-citizens. The difference back then was that the stories were told with a good deal more wit and invention, with better actors and better writing. People are willing to overlook some political messaging, as long as it is subordinated to plot and character.

Unfortunately, since at least Jodie Whittaker’s time in the TARDIS, the preaching has frequently overwhelmed the story — consider 2018’s Rosa, a leaden parable about racism, or more recently the tiresome lectures about gender in 2023’s The Star Beast. Doctor Who is now a fundamentally moralistic and didactic show, and that is a great shame.


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