Television, said the critic Clive Barnes, is the first truly democratic culture, “the first culture available to everybody and entirely governed by what the people want. The most terrifying thing is what people do want.” And what the people evidently want is to see John Sergeant shuffling his feet around on Strictly Come Dancing for a further week. Ballroom buffs find this terrifying.

Is Sergeant a talentless dancer? Does his continued survival make a mockery of a contest seeking to select the most nimble celebrity waltzer? Shouldn't we favour excellence in a TV show as much as we do on the sports field or racetrack? Yes, yes, and yes. So does that mean Sergeant's success is ruining the show? Absolutely not.

True, Sergeant dances like your embarrassing uncle at a wedding. But Strictly Come Dancing is not a dance contest. It's Saturday night entertainment. Remember Come Dancing? That was a dance contest and we all grew bored of it because it was full of hairsprayed waltzers with smiles so taut you could pluck them like a banjo string.

The expert judges on Strictly steer the public towards whom they should vote for, and the public thumb their noses at the experts because they're not after the perfect chassé or lock step, they're after being entertained. Viewers don't vote for Sergeant for his footwork any more than Marilyn Monroe married Arthur Miller for his looks.

If expertise were all, you'd send Ray Mears and Bear Grylls to pit their survival skills against each other in the Australian jungle in I'm A Celebrity ...Get Me Out of Here!, not Esther Rantzen and Martina Navratilova. It takes two to tango, and the public want one of them to be John Sergeant. Is that strictly fair? No, it's showbiz.