Moments after I was voted out of Strictly Come Dancing two years ago, Bruce Forsyth told viewers: “You people at home have got to remember that this is a dancing competition and you’ve got to vote for the best dancer.”

Brucie’s plea was edited out of the Sunday night results show. The programme’s producers, as well as the great man himself, would not want to be seen to be preaching to the viewers. But the trade-off in popularity brought about by talent and public sympathy is one that has formed the crux of every series of Strictly.

Right from the word go, the British public have used their sense of irony and humour to elevate those who don’t necessarily exhibit the best paso doble, but who bring a sense of fun into the nation’s living rooms on a Saturday night.

The great thing about the show is that the public have always set the tone — and they can afford to have fun with their choices. Strictly isn’t life-changing, as The X-Factor is. No dreams will be built on the back of winning the competition.

I want to know what this new outlook means. Will we no longer hear the judges berating whichever poor soul fulfils the John Sergeant role in this year’s competition, for staying in the show longer than a worthier opponent?

Obviously, we won’t see Arlene Phillips reprising her role as castigator-in-chief. By bringing in Alesha Dixon, the BBC has replaced an older dance expert with a much younger, more glamorous all-rounder.

But I don’t think the people at home need to be told that this is entertainment, rather than an attempt to replicate a top-level dancing competition. As we’ve all seen from watching John Sergeant’s procession through last year’s show, they already know that.

Editor's choice

• The 100 Best Films of the Decade
• 70 facts you didn't know about Marvel
• The 50 Biggest Movies Of 2010