And after all, it's only a TV programme.

Um no I think not- this discussion was had on the ITT thread and it was me that coined the term a couple of days before it was on the beeb site! (And I didn't clarify the fact either it was an independent!)

its my only claim to fame this series unlike celeb Sid!

They are the best partnership and should win.....certainly ahead of the lacklustre and dull Ricky and Natalie. I'm fond of the gutsy graceful Ali, and she should be in the final along with Chris and Ola whose delightful partnership has provided some much needed sparkle to this year.

Agreed.

Yes, the whole concept of the "partnership", along with the ability to please an audience (via entertaining dance routines) does sum up the whole idea of Strictly as a programme.

The joy of having a public vote is that strange things happen. If you want a pure competition then don't have the public vote but where's the fun in that?

I remember checking out the posting dates when the same question came up 2 or 3 weeks back (sad creature that I am....)

You definitely coined the phrase!

Oh dear, yet another person who still thinks Strictly is a serious dance contest. It's a light entertainment show, therefore nobody really cares who wins as long as they are entertained. The majority of people who watch the show don't take it seriously and so won't be influenced to switch off next year by Chris winning.

If the majority vote for Chris to win, then obviously they want Chris to win and will be happy for him to win and will tune in next year and vote for someone else to win.

Are you and me in a parallel universe to some on here, because I'm giving up the will to live.

And if Chris really is pulling in a large public vote, you could also argue that a substantial percentage of viewers might switch off next year if he doesn't win.

I am a Team Cola supporter let me say that from the start. As a Team Cola supporter I wish they were slightly better dancers than they are, although I think some of his dances have been overlooked, he did a very very creditable Tango and Rumba in week 1. So having said that I wish they were more consistent dancers, I love them because they have IT it cant be bottled it cant be taught or learnt its just a special mixture of charm and humour and chemistry which for me makes them one of the BEST partnerships ever in strictly history, its not all about the dancing in their case, infact I love them despite the fact that they are not the best dancers, they are just a joy full stop.

I am so glad it is Chris and Ricky G I will be seeing on tour the crowd will love them.

I thought SCD was an entertaining Dance show? It is fine dancing presented and performed for our Entertainment. It is not serious, who do you imagine thinks it is. But it is not light entertainment, we do not see commedians with washboards, chinese acrobats nor ventriliquist dummies do we?

One day, I will come on to this forum and find a thread title sans hyperbole. Reasonable arguments. Respect for other points of view. Y'know. I can always dream.

FARCE? Oh lord help me.

I'm with you in that parallel universe, keep that will to live alive.

And on a wider note, opinions are fine, differing viewpoints are fine, but some of the OTT anti/hate threads on here are beyond the pale.

Spot on - agree with you

Why are people posting such negative threads???!!

Whilst I have nothing against Chris at all, he seems a nice enough chap I don't understand all this talk of personality. Why is personality only measured in terms of fun, catchphrases, acting childishly, being a comedian etc. Ali and Ricky both have personalities just a bit more reserved but both are hard working, enthusastic and all the other qualities that the contestants should be. Why is it that they are perceived as not enjoying themselves as much as Chris? Ali especially seems to be loving every moment and has shown some very good characteristics, bravery in particular but because she doesn't do slapstick humour she is said not to have any personality. Why can't being serious about something be seen as equally as valuable as having 'fun'. Why is FUN all that seems to matter these days?

I don't see any sign of any performance that matches Darren's best and more importantly there's no enormous journey there either. Colin and Zoe were better but Darren's average was nearer to both the people above him than it was to Patsy behind him. He had 10 marks out of 13 over 30 in a series when marking was probably tougher. Darren had the best mark for two dances. Chris has done less well than 5 people so far - with 4 its a big difference - He has 4 marks over 30 out of 11 and hasn't been best at anything or best any week. Its the strong challenger with a strong story versus the Emperor with no clothes at all.

I can't see much problem with Jill, Natasha, Alesha or Mark and Darren was credible with a big and real story and an opponent who flunked the big dance at the end. That leaves Tom who was also much nearer to the best dancers and beat them some weeks even if overall he was not as good and was outdanced by someone for the last 6 weeks before the last dance. Chris would be truly unique.

The point about entertaining is circular - it turns into I like him and it doesn't necesarily have anything to do with whats shown or dancing. The partnership argument is untenable as an advantage - Ricky and Nathalie are reported to have a closer relationship and Ali and Brian obviously do. Its not even clear from ITT that Cola would win the Strictly Come Comedy Duos show if everyone was put in play for that.

Doesn't the part highlighted somewhat contradict itself? If Darren had 10 marks out of thirteen over thirty (including week 2) then where was this enormous journey? Granted, his cha cha was dire in week 1 but his ballroom was consistently good. I think Darren's build/background made/make people think that his improvement was greater than it was.

SCD is an entertainment show and the contestants need to entertain. Chris is entertaining for many people and thats why he is popular. Ali is I'm sure a very nice person but she comes across as bland.

Why don't they just forget about the dancing then and just entertain as best they can. Isn't good dancing entertaining in itself?

I think Strictly Come Dancing should be scrapped next year in favour of the return of Come Dancing - no public vote, judges have total say, and their opinions are the only one's who count. The best dancer technically will win; who cares if they don't connect with the majority of the audience? Obviously the audience should not have a voice anymore.

I think it would be fairly unique in the recent history of strictly to crown someone who has so far not scored more than 34 for any dance, however I find in this circumstances that I dont really care, Chris and Ola are not awful dancers in the mould of Joe or Craig, they are just not as consistantly good as Ricky and Ali, however they bring something else to the dance floor that Ricky and Ali cant replicate, which is sheer joy in what they are doing each and every time. Ali is good but looks terrified even after 11 weeks of being told how good she is.....Ricky or perhaps really its Natalie is taking it far too seriously therefore, I want Chris and Ola to be the champions because they make me laugh and smile and stand up and clap sometimes, which the others just dont.

Gurning Hollins gets on my t*ts.

It was definitely FelineFantastic who came up with Cola first on DS and before it was used on the BBC, as I checked when people thought I had come up with it, but it is just a case of great minds!

People on here moaned like hell last year when Tom Chambers won. But he;s a zillion times better than the dire Hollins. Still it would be extremely boring for a watered down cheeky chappie sort to win again.