therevster.com

When I saw the advert for the BBC series “A History of Scotland” I felt a slight aversion to it. This was largely due to the presenter looking a little too much like William Wallace. I therefore assumed the whole series would consist of english baiting at best, and at worst, english bashing.

However having watched all the series I feel ashamed of my initial reaction. The excellent archaeologist Neil Oliver presented the program very well. He had just the right amount of charisma needed for a historical documentary and, good on him, had clearly resisted pressure to have his teeth fixed for the filming, preferring instead the natural rugged Wallacesque look.

Ashamed though I am, and intriguing though it was, the clear message of the programme ran like a tartan thread through the series; “the english are wusses”.

So poor old John Sergeant has found himself having to resign from one of Britain’s most popular T.V shows because in his words, “there was a real chance I might win it”.

The process leading up to the Strictly Come Dancing’s most popular celebrity participant resigning has been a little tumultuous (if indeed anything can be “a little” tumultuous) with show’s judges and Sargeant’s fellow participants making noises of displeasure at his continued presence in the competition.

Better dancers were being voted out by the judges as they found themselves placed in the dance-off by the public. The result of this may well have been that the final would be decided by one competent dancer and an incompetent one though adored by the public.

So here is my take on it. John Sergeant should not have withdrawn from the show. Why? Because one of the shows central premises is that the public get to decide who faces the judges in a dance-off. What makes the show so accessible is that it purposefully set out to bow to the whims of the British public. To then blame the public or even the struggling dancer for making it through safely each week is grossly unfair. If the show’s producers wanted to guarantee emerging with the most talented dancers in the final stages then they should have relied solely on a judging panel of experts and not have implemented a public voting system. If John Sargeant had won, it would not have meant that the public thought he was the most talented dancer, rather that they thought he was the nicest and most accessible personality.

If the show’s producers wanted to guarantee emerging with the most talented dancers in the final stages then they should have relied solely on a judging panel of experts and not have implemented a public voting system

Democracy hardly ever results in the election of the best person for the job but almost always the person who has the ability to capture the spirit of the moment.

I’ve just heard something both remarkable and rare. On the Radio 4 daily news programme “P.M” the former leader of the British Conservative Party, Ian Duncan-Smith spoke eloquently and bravely about the sorry state of marriage and family life in the U.K.

The latest statistics for marriage in the UK show that only 23 in every 1000 men “tie the knot” with the figure decreasing to 2.1% for women.

Duncan-Smith chairs the Centre for Social Justice which has just authored a report called “Breakthrough Britain” he calls for the Government to realise what part it has played in the deterioration of the institute of marriage. Acknowledging that no government can engineer an increase in marriages, he does nevertheless believe that marriage can be placed back at the heart of British society.

Just two of the Government initiated schemes which the report cites as detrimental to marriage are the “Couple Penalty” which ensures that married or co-habiting couples on benefits are less well off than single parents, and the tax penalties for married couples who decide that one should leave employment and stay at home to raise the children. These and more show, says Duncan-Smith, “that the Government is not an innocent bystander” in the reduction of marriage.

Making very strong statements about the damage done to children who come from homes without a father and mother, I.D.S specifically highlighted girls who, with a lack of a male figure who offers them unconditional love, are too willing to “earn” love from boys by having sex.

His arguments were so well put that the usually bullish presenter Eddie Mair made little impression on the item.

Though certain to upset many who value highly the freedom to choose a one parent family if they desire, Ian Duncan-Smith will no doubt fight for the profile of this report to be increased within Parliament over the coming weeks.

To listen to the interview on BBC IPlayer click here.