I’d say it’s sort of the reverse of midnight with midnight we don’t know what the monster is but we know what it’s doing. Here we learn who the monster is but we don’t know what it’s doing. So it’s not so much as playing on fear of the unknown as going with what exactly is going on here.I'd argue that things are scarier when you don't explain anything. Explaining something causes it to lose the mystique, and the explanation is often disappointing compared to what you build up in your mind. Take Hannibal Lecter, Darth Vader, Michael Myers from Halloween, or the Xenomorph from Alien, for example - when those series went into the backstory/creation of those characters, it was seen as disappointing.
As for the election, aside from Gwilliam clearly eager to launch nuclear weapons (with it outright being said that he'd do it at the first opportunity, possibly even at the moment that he got control), there was whatever it was implied that he was doing to Marti. There are presumably limits to what they can show, but it seems like the point is that politicians (or anyone, really) can be charismatic but hide darker sides to themselves.
For me, some of the most unsettling moments in Doctor Who (at least from what I've seen) have happened when the Doctor's response to something is "I don't know", and in this case, these new forces that are in play take that to extremes, removing the Doctor from the universe without warning. It's kind of like the episode Midnight, where they're faced with a force that defies natural order.
as for the second bit that’s what I was saying we only know what he going to do. As implying stuff well the exact same writer in the exact same show was able to imply things a lot heavier in the past and make it more clear
ultimately it comes down to how they do it and here I feel they didn’t do it very well
Last edited: