The judges

By far the biggest change to this year’s Strictly has been that wreaked on the judging panel. A change in the make up of the panel was long overdue, and Strictly 6 seemed to have deteriorated into a battle of wills – public versus judges.

Instead of constructive criticism and praise for the contestants when due, with a dash of genuine persiflage between host and judges, the judging segment of SCD6 became a viper’s nest, with real acrimony threatening to overtake the whole series.

The panel had always been unbalanced with only one ballroom and Latin expert pitted against three jazz and modern choreographers. The genius Strictly is that it takes ballroom dancing out of the ballroom and puts it on a “stage”. With the pro dancers free to use the lyrics of the song to tell a story, or the tone of the music to set a mood, the dancers were able to engage directly with the audience in a way not possible in a traditional dancing competition. The inclusion of West End choreographers to comment on performance and pizzazz was therefore justified, although a ratio of two ballroom experts and two performance judges would have struck a better balance.

With Len Goodman the only judge with the expertise to comment on technique and required content, that left limited “territory” for the other three judges to occupy. With Len also in the role of “nice judge”, the only judge who had direct experience of teaching and judging beginner and less talented dancers (I doubt Arlene and co would know a beginner dancer if one jumped up and bit them on the bottom; they are used to dealing only with the very best of the most talented professionals), the judging territory was further narrowed for the other three. Initially, they seemed content to play up to their caricatures – Bruno, the eccentric Italian, given to waving his hands, and latterly his legs in the air; Arlene, the hard-bitten professional, passing on some sound advice amongst the annoying alliteration; and Craig the Mr Nasty, content to be the subject of audience booing each week. It was when the three choreographers began to try and “extend” their territory and comment on matters technical that the problems began, and the arguments between judges began to take up increasing amounts of air time.

I realise that a lot of viewers like the souped up arguments and personal insults (part of me suspects that the judges have producers in their ear pieces screaming “ITV are going for an ad break. Go nuts!”, in a deliberate ratings ploy). I, however, am rapidly turning into a grumpy old woman and hated the sight of four people whose professional achievements I respect reducing themselves to the level of stroppy 7 year olds. I hated seeing a celebrity, already way out of his or her comfort zone, stand there hearing their performance squabbled over and picked apart; and hated seeing the pro dancer, reputation on the line, see their charge ripped to shreds by ignorant remarks.

Something obviously needed to be done. The BBC could have substituted one of the choreographers with Karen Hardy, a “marmite” character (much valued by reality TV) who is articulate and holds strong opinions. Karen has achieved the highest levels of success in her own competitive career, and has nothing to prove to anyone. She now teaches and judges, and in addition to winning Strictly, she has also known the challenges of unpromising partners. Having taken early baths the last couple of years, she has become less associated in the public mind with competing and more with commentating. She is better with words and more even tempered than Len, and would be able to counter Craig’s barbed comments more effectively. A panel of Craig, Karen, Arlene, Len (or even Craig, Karen, Len, Bruno) would have been a strong panel, and one which still encompassed a variety of experience and views.

But the BBC chose not to go this route. They chose one that would lay them wide open to accusations of dumbing down, as well as the more dangerous ones of ageism and sexism.

I am a great admirer of Alesha Dixon. I voted incessantly for her in Series 5 (the first time I had ever lifted the phone to vote in a reality TV show), and I have since followed her career and bought her music. I hope for her sake that this career move works out for her, because at the least I feel that she has been badly advised, and in line to take the flak for any problems in SCD7.

And as for the BBC –a publicly funded body - they have acted woefully in terms of promulgating outmoded sexist and ageist stereotypes. SCD7 will be reinforcing the prejudice that men are the ones with real authority, who can judge from experience and use facts to back up their arguments, whilst women are there to be decorative, to be seen but not listened to with any respect.

By replacing a 66 year-old woman, who has 40 years of experience as a top professional with a 30 year old who has 16 weeks of experience of learning to follow a routine, the BBC are giving out the message that achievement, hard work and dedication are worth nothing in the face of youth and good looks. It reinforces the obsession with instant fame and immediate gratification that seems to be the holy grail of the “yoof” of today (told you I was turning into a grumpy old woman). As an aside, I wonder whether the remake of that 80s classic will feature the iconic phrase “You want fame? Well fame costs, and right here is where you start paying. In sweat” or whether it will be replaced by “You want fame? Well call a publicist and have them set you up a kiss and tell with another wannabe and a few mag deals”.

It is of course crystal clear with the rescheduling of the Saturday night show that Alesha is being pitched directly against Cheryl Cole in a further bid to win the ratings war. Although whether the BBC should be pursuing the “yoof” demographic so crucial to ITV due to their dependence on advertising revenue, instead of concentrating on producing entertainment for family viewing, is a whole different debate.