From a "mythology" perspective it would make sense if he did know what was going on. I don't think I want him to be running it, though. Maybe just been in a coma for ages or somesuch.

If Chaz had been in LoM, I could see (well enough to throw things at) a solution like the US one, but, as it is, it makes less sense. Also, see above re: throwing things.

Why couldn't anyone have looked at personnel files while in the now and given us an answer as to whether any of these people actually lived in our Universe? Seems like the first thing you do when you hear Sam's story. I know, dramatic tension, but, still...

It's interesting that they made the point about Gene changing because of both Sam and Alex. I wonder how, if at all, it feeds into the larger mythology.

3 more episodes, and still a lot to be done.

DebetEsse, I don't imagine that anyone would have checked whether Gene etc. actually existed, because it would have been assumed that Sam was hallucinating. I'm a bit surprised that Sam didn't appear to try and look them up, though. Maybe he didn't care. Alex's comments about that life seeming more real than her actual life probably come into play .

Yes, I'm actually quite looking forward to the last three eps.

I like to think that, given the connections to actual events (that Sam or Alex witnessed as a child), someone would have at least run Gene's name through the police databases. Both of them had time in the "real world" after their time in Gene-land, as well.

AtoA: Farewell then, Viv, we hardly knew you.

I do like the way they've "brought back" Sam. The actor even has some of John Simm's edginess .

Fiona: You think he really is Sam, then? I wasn't sure. But then, I expect that's the point!

I have no idea whether or not he "IS" Sam; I agree the point is that we're supposed to be as unsure as Alex. I was just saying that I like the way the actor resembles John Simm physically a little bit, it makes it all work better .

From here in the U.S. the UK election is somewhat confusing. Are the Liberal Democrats at least going to get a referendum on PR out of a Tory-Libdem coalition? If so will the Tories be the one to phrase the question? Also, is the choice of allying with Tories rather than Labor really being made essentially out of personal spite?

It looks like a Tory/LibDem announcement is imminent, Typo.

It looks like the LibDems will get an Alternative Vote referendum out of the Tories, which wouldn't dent the Tory vote as much as a Single Transferable Vote system would.

Not sure about the spite thing- there was no love lost between Clegg and Brown, but now that Brown has stepped down that's less of an issue. I think the major issue is that the Tories got the most votes and so have more of a mandate than than Labour, so that's a factor in why the LibDems are talking to them at all, when their policies are so disparate.

I think the main issue is that the Lib Dems are kind of screwed eitehr way - they go into power with the Tories and there's no way they'll move forward on a referendum for STV, in my opinion. But the can't really join a Labour coalition because it will barely be a majority government and there's enough Labour backbenchers opposed to PR that a vote for a referendum would never pass.

I thought the ideological gulf between the Tories and the Lib Dems would prevent them reaching a deal. Seems I was entirely wrong. Bugger it.