Using a proper host does not mean a return to the days of Bruce - who, incidentally, has a lot to answer for in terms of landing us in the current mess. Bruce used to be fantastic - love him or loathe him - but as his powers declined, he became like a petulant child, more and more seeking reassurance that he was still the king by way of hogging the limelight. Tess did an excellent job as his glamorous sidekick but also, more importantly, keeping the whole thing running.

The Beeb got egg all over its face when it sacked Arlene and replace her with a younger woman with no credentials for the job other than she'd once won the series. It was clear she was a disaster but the BBC were not going to remove her although it must have been a relief when she upped sticks. But that debacle meant that when the hosts job became vacant the producers felt they couldn't replace the woman who'd been a stalwart for many years and Tess got the gig with the little wizened one as her sidekick.

Clearly opinion is split, but it is interesting that even those people who defend the current incumbents do not exactly lavish praise on them. We hear a lot about competency and being an anchor and keeping the show to time - all of which are valuable attributes but a lot more is required of the hosts of a major entertainment programme. It isn't enough simply to introduce the dancers and make a few 'oh poor you' and 'well we all loved you' comments. As another poster has said, Ed Balls has saved the show this year but in a different year I think questions might have been asked. They certainly should be.

I respect the fact that you don't like Claudia's presenting style. Implying she isn't intelligent is a bit daft though IMO.

Exactly.
I've actually made that last point before.

The BBC are happy with the show as it is.

I accuse them, rightly in my opinion, of many things, but often say, over certain things they do, they aren't daft and this is one of them.

Back in the day, Bruce had a couple of days on the sick and the show's ratings didn't suffer. The use of Ronnie Corbett one Saturday in his absence was a disastrous panic move, but the BBC learned it's lesson, when Bruce baled out of the Sunday show.

Instead of bringing in another presenter, finding that the two women managed quite well the main show in his absence, they decided to let them do it. They must have been satisfied with the ratings as it became a permanent arrangement.

I would think at that time, it was decided to "manage" the departure of the "over-paid for what he did," main presenter.

My "business head" says that the two women together, will be on nowhere near what he was paid.
The "gig" probably suits Claudia with her family and other commitments and there's little chance of Tess finding anything better, even if now she wanted it.
They will be both aware, that they aren't irreplaceable as the show has a momentum of its own. The BBC are in the driving seat.
Having thrown money at the programme for years in a drive to beat the X-Factor on ratings, they will be looking as they do everywhere for economies. It has been pointed out that the most obvious area where this has happened is wardrobe.

"It ain't broke so there's no need to fix it."

Anyone looking for a "big name" replacement presenter, is out of luck. It won't happen.

Ed Balls has no more saved the show than Russell Grant or John Sargent.
Will Young's departure didn't cause a ripple in the ratings. Nor will Ed's.

In which case you are allowing your personal dislike of her to cloud reality.

She is in fact a very clever, capable and versatile broadcaster - hence the eclectic range of programmes in which she has been involved.

Strictly is, for her, a very easy role compared to most others she has taken on - the main challenge being the fact that it is broadcast live.

I like Claudia and Tess as presenters. They balance each other out, work well, and it woukd be a mistake to replace them.

I disagree with the last bit strongly, Balls wouldn't still be in if they didn't need him and they probably will for at least a couple more weeks yet.

Next year Cow will be stronger and the BBC has no right to the ratings it doesn't need to be a Forsyth style big name, Ball has more about her and a better track record than Winkleman and would cost no more and there are other good options.

I would replace them both now but they could keep Daly and maybe rid Tonioli who is probably past his date as a judge but if the warning signs are there, Balls has saved this year and Cow looks like he has turned the ship round on ITV.

Her record is very moderate and she had done very little of great note before getting the opening on this show.

In my opinion your prejudices are clouding your judgement.

There are no warning signs. The show continues to be popular and the public are wise to all the X-Factor hype, that's why it will continue to die.

There's only so much crap singing the public can stand.

Claudia is both intelligent and capable. But she works best in small intimate surroundings, not the big-screen glitterball that is SCD. She looks as odd in it as his presenting style. Words fail re the stuff they do with the Terms and Conditions.

I don't think she ever set out to be - or believes herself to be - a great heavyweight of British broadcasting.

If she was not considered to have merit or was not valued by the BBC, it's likely that they would not ask her to present anything. It appears therefore that she is regarded fairly highly.

Your personal grievances against her - the reasons for which elude me completely - are probably of very little consequence.

There is only so much crap dancing as well, both are similar in staging and script just the commercial angle that makes less believe on X Factor.

They dare not risk getting Balls out too early this year and that is a warning sign, this years ratings are on the back of him and he won't be around next year.

I wouldn't write Cow off so quickly, he only needs one person who gets the public interested and the game is back on again.

Haha...cheered me up on a "down" day that did !! Many a true word though ! Simon Cowell has been chasing his tail and tinkering with his show's format for a few seasons now. Hes still behind the 8 ball.... even having changed presenters, changed them back and re-incarnated previously cast off Judges ...and then again. Strictly is a gem with many facets...dependent on no individual be it Presenter or Judge nor any particular gimmick or change. It is though a composite gem and the very successful sum of all its parts. With respect to all, why change it ?

Agree, I would hate to see her go. I must obviously be on the same wavelength as her (possibly slightly mad!), whereas distractors are possibly not, but that is the nature of life. I would probably hate their alternatives.

As for Tess, I think she should forget the humour, which she does not do well, and just keep to straight scripts that have her carrying out introductions, but I am not generally too bothered that she is on the show.

The resemblance to Frank and George Doberman gets more noticeable with each post you make.

My grievance is she is not very good no more no less. She probably is highly regarded by the BBC but there is wider debate to be had there, this is the era of safe and dull the likes of Winkleman and Baker given plum roles. One extreme to the other after Saville and they have gone too far, they want control and yes men these days.

A proper presenter would not allow themselves to be demeaned the way Winkleman is with the terms and charges, wouldn't happen.

How can you have a "grievance" with the content of a telly programme? Using that word suggests it is "personal." It ain't, you're just one of 10M. who watch the programme.

All you can have is an "opinion," just like anyone else.

What has any of this got to do with Savile? (correct spelling).

Claudia and everyone else are just having a bit of a laugh over the obligation to present the terms and conditions.

You're trying to make something out of trivia.

The presenters won't change.

You've had your moan, which is fair enough, but now let it go.

Could you please stop with this pompous nonsense of referring to people by their surnames? Whilst in the context of this thread, I realise that you are referring to Claudia Winkleman... however I do not know who "Baker" is.

Frankly, coupled with the generally self-righteous tone you adopt in every post, it's all becoming rather tedious to read.

Ah yes from the extreme of being a child molester to the other extreme of not being a child molester.

I was responding to the previous post, I agree it is the BBC the presenters won't change although they should put better on.

Winkleman does as she is told that is why she is there, it isn't trivia it is low quality stuff, once ok every week stupid.

The point made about Savile is this, is this why the BBC have such mundane presenters heading their flagship shows, from one extreme to the other. There are others cut from the same cloth Baker, Walker etc.

I wasn't quite meaning that as you know, total presenter freedom to complete puppets or managers poodles.

You still don't get it, despite the number of times you're told.

How will a change in presenters improve the dancing?

The main reason people watch the show.

The show does not need presenting. The "show" is the dancers. They don't need presenting either, just introducing.
That's being done.

Your thoughts don't stir my blood but I will stay away from abuse. Second names if I don't know the person always was the way, I think the topic was worthy of debate and I won't be the last to highlight this.

Bizarre.

Yes they have made it much as you say but plenty could be improved, these two are awkward together they look awkward, act awkward, Daly is probably 9 inches plus taller than Winkleman, so she rather than accept nature puts a massive stack heel on she can barely walk with, little chemistry between them at all. Then there is the lack of interpretation between Daly the judges and the contestant, if Daly has to be there she should surely be in the other slot.

Then you have the lack of honesty in the judges marking which is becoming X Factor standard, plus the incredibly slow dance interpretation which really is apeing the X Factor, not quite as rosy I don't think as you allude to.

My issue with the presenters and judges is more to do with how much they're paid in relation to what they actually do (when I compare it to what the pros get paid and what they acutally do!)

In terms of working hours, workload, talent, input, entertainment, teaching, choreography, support and performing etc they should earn so much more than the presenters or judges do imo, never mind the opposite being the case - and such a disparity between the two - but I have to accept thats just the way of the world, how it works. Just as footballers earn more than cardiac surgeons do

Having said that, I like Tess and Claudia even with the quirks, blunders and cheesyness. As much as i can see why they might put some people off, I find them both likeable and can't think of anyone I'd rather replace them with, I suppose its familiarity too, I see them as part of the show I can't see them ever bothering me that much anyway, since all they really do is link to the next thing.