Originally Posted by DavidJames:
“What I meant was, he's a generic TV presenter.
If we throw away the "connection with dance" thing from the job spec, then that means there are dozens of other possibilities - Norton has no more qualifications than, I dunno, Chris Evans or whoever.
So either "connection with dance" is a part of the spec or it's not. And personally, I'd prefer it, if it was part of the spec.”
Tom Bergeron on Dancing with the Stars has no connection with dance, and is just about the best you could get - and for me proves that what is more important than actual dance experience is a quick wit. He dosen't put himself forward and he doesn't try to take over but he is awesome (in a purely unbiased way

)
I think, when Strictly first appeared Bruce was quite a coup to host and I think it was the established 'Mr Saturday Night' persona that was wanted and the dancing stuff just an added bonus - Brucie or otherwise

. A pro/celeb ballroom dancing competition for charity could have sunk quite as easilly as it swam and Bruce was a bit of kudos and a 'name'.
Personally, I would go for a host who quietly hosts and has a quick wit and sense of the ridiculous but can't dance over someone who can dance but lacks the humour. A Graham Norton or Julian Clary would fit well for me, but I'm sure there must be others that could potentially work as well.