For years Strictly Come Dancing has been as much or more about popularity than dancing. The system whereby the public get an equal share of the vote to put contestants into the dance offs means that the more popular contestants survive even when their dancing skills are not so good.
We might disagree with some of the comments the judges make and certainly their scores are often questionable. However, they do know a thing or two about dancing and can recognise when someone is good or more to the point not so good. The mix between technique and entertainment value is not so easy to evaluate. They don't usually give high scores to those who are struggling. Ability rather than effort is rewarded particularly when we get to the final weeks.
It was clear from the start that some of the contestants had little sense of rhythm in their bodies and would struggle to pull of the more tricky dances. I'm thinking about the likes of Paul Merson, Nick Knowles and Toyah Wilcox here.
The person who has struggled most is probably the blind contestant, Chris McCausland. We are in awe of the fact that he can dance at all. His ability to keep in time with his partner is a mystery. Does that mean though that we should vote for him to win the competition? I don't think so.
I confess to visiting the Strictly Spoiler site on Sunday mornings as much to find out who is popular and who is not as much as to discover who has been eliminated. Each week you have the chance to vote for the three competitors who you think are the best. Almost every week, Chris McCausland tops the list by a large margin.
If the public keep putting him top of the list, then he will certainly be in the final when the only vote that will count will be the public vote. Should he eventually win over much stronger contestants like Tasha Ghouri or JB Gill? I'm not so sure.
Oh yes, and finally, why is Pete Wicks escaping dance offs?