You've no idea how it works have you?
The worst the judges can do is put him last, as they have done. How's that trying to keep him in?

Yes the BBC can try to influence the vote, I've not noticed any special treatment, but if any, how successful are their efforts is debatable.
It's the public who are keeping him in and it'll be the public who will eventually be voting him out. They do it with most of the comedy content.

John Sargent was the only one who jumped before he was pushed. I and others think he did it as much, just to draw attention to himself and he didn't do badly out of the media attention over it.

This years are not exactly top celebs, without Balls there isn't a lot of charisma, that said BBC do have the advantage but complacency is dangerous and the signs are there.

If the BBC want him out he will be gone they have total control, they wanted Hollins to win he won, nothing has changed.

As its a public vote, and indeed, also independently verified, are you suggesting that in a dance-off, the Judges could be ordered who to turf regardless of performance on the night ? Good luck with that flight of fancy.

After last year's PR disaster with Peter Andre I don't think they dare.

Yeah, the Blue Peter Mafia would have seen to that, wouldn't they?

Well said. We may have two female presenters on the show but the work they are producing is more akin to glamorous female sidekick than anything a proper host (male or female) would do. Trouble is, they know they have a fab gig and they will never let go.

Come on Doghouse, no need to be so dogged!

Other viewpoints are available and equally valid.

Of course they are valid, it's the ones that predict what will happen, like Strictly will lose out in the ratings battle against naffin' X-Factor, or that the BBC will change the presenters, to improve the programme, which they won't.

It's just the application of common sense.

I know that you don't rate them etc, but I don't fully understand the analogy you make with them and their output being "glamorous female sidekick"... when they do pieces directly to camera Tess Daly especially and she also verbally maintains the flow of the show, as you said yourself in an earlier post as she did back in the Bruce F. era. What should "a proper host " of Strictly do in effect...whilst on camera speaking live at the same time listening to ear piece talk-through from the gallery, cues/timings etc. Maybe some other mainstream presenter experienced in live primetime could add something as you suggest...or an experienced comic could maybe refresh the jokey aspect but would that add to SCD or merely change it.

Okay, taking the 'listening to an ear piece' thing that comes up all the time as if it is akin to going over Niagara Falls in a barrel. It is what presenters do, just as plumbers wield a monkey wrench. I'm not going to allocate special kudos because somebody can actually do the technical part of their job.

As regards their output, a proper professional skilled host would do far more than mouth:

'they're on their feet'
'well we all loved them'

ten million times. Pieces to camera - hardly. She isn't Kate Adie. She speaks from an autocue or uses the same lines she's used for all the years she's been there. It would be hard to be more banale if she tried.

And then there's Claudia. Reduced to ramping up the Terms and Conditions. Yup, that is really SO funny. Almost as funny as wearing false moustaches and bringing on dead birds. Can you honestly see someone like Graham Norton resorting to such rubbish?

What I've got from this thread is that ianmatt is the only person who knows what is right for Strictly - not even the BBC knows what's best for it (in his opinion that is) - and that he obviously has complete contempt for Claudia and Tess by referring to them pompously as "Winkleman" and "Daly".

As for
really looking forward to this - not! I'm sure others are waiting with bated breath as well.

And as for the claim that it's all fixed because the BBC will keep Ed in, obviously ianmatt is unaware of the debacle back in 2007 which opened a whole can of worms over viewer votes so that it is now all independently conducted and verified and cannot be engineered to suit the producers and therefore he should be very careful to check facts (not just his opinion) before libelling the BBC.

29 posts to this thread must mean you really are obsessed with just how much you detest Tess and Claudia, so are unable to be objective about them ianmatt.

Hang on!
We've done that already. She isn't "reduced," it's more likely that it's the producer's decision. I'm not saying she might have suggested it, we don't know whose idea it was.

But most of her stuff is scripted, like the false moustaches and dead birds s. she's just doing what she's been told to do.

What she's good at, is ad-libs, these she slips in whilst not looking at the camera, as they ain't on the auto-cue.

Don't get annoyed with me...I merely asked you what a "proper" host/presenter would do.... not what one/ or Graham Norton wouldn't do....and you didn't say. I didn't forensically dissect your post as it appears you have mine.... Im not that bothered about the two girls to get wound up about them to be honest. Oh and no need for another précis of the things you cant stand about them ..."okay and yup"...I did get it before. I cant (and wouldn't attempt to argue with) your knowledge of live tv studio protocol either. I know my place, having only done a few years in live radio production...and indeed that being some time back now too. Though not as long back as references to women as being "glamorous sidekicks" and Kate Adie being a contemporary yardstick unless to journalists. Looks like that's me all done with this thread anyway. Bonne nuit.

I really don't understand why people are getting so cheesed off by the Terms & Conditions segment.

Although it is an essential requirement to repeat the Ts & Cs every week, it has to be the most tedious part of the entire show and that is acknowledged by the fact that they make a tongue in cheek attempt to add a little levity to the proceedings in order to lighten things up and vary it each week.

Yes, I'm sure everyone would much rather hear the disembodied voice of Alan Deadly-Coat relentlessly intoning the entire speech whilst the Ts and C's scroll up, like the opening credits of Star Wars...

For some reason I can't warm to this thread.

"Are you the only one?"

Really? I though tess was looking hot this year...think I'll be popping along to Specsavers to see if they still have that 2 for 1 offer on this week!
Seriously, as others have said 10 million plus, outscoring P.E. AND iMACELEB as well as dross factor at the moment...leave them to it.

Just one gripe...I don't like the way they BOTH say out loud together 'Our Strictly Stars' at the start of the show.....that bit should be dropped!

e-mail Louise Rainbow, I'm sure she likes to listen to suggestions on how to improve the show.

it is a bit of a nuisance....but that would be the same whoever the presenters. Plus it is still better than wading through the same 6 bloody adverts on ITV for an hour during dross factor.

Oh goodie...

This is the point I made at the start of the series...but I have to say that there have been big performances from not-such big names. I am not exactly eating my words....but I will admit it has been a far better 'experience' than I thought it would be 7 weeks ago!!

I'm with you on that.

I don't mind admitting that I was bemused by this years line-up, having only heard of around half of them previously... but they've turned out to be a generally very decent bunch of performers.

Oh, listen I am really sorry if it came across that way. Nothing personal was meant or intended so please accept my apology.

I do enjoy a good debate, though, and like to take an analytical approach.

So sorry

Nor me. I don't mind Claudia but Tess is so fake and irritating I wish she would go, could be worse though we may get lumbered with her on a show that is on all year!