The Bad Penny Show

I'm glad Nina Wadia's imminent departure has induced angst amongst the fans. I hope it continues, because it's the beginning of something I said would happen in 2013: Lorraine Newman's continued interest in her own pet projects, such as repairing Kat, restoring the Kat and Alfie situation, bringing Tyler Moon more to the forefront (I ask you), and Brannings, Brannings, Brannings, risks losing valued and more credible actors in the cast.

Newman says she wants to stop the revolving door. Well, I think that it's stuck. And what EastEnders is left with, in my opinion, is one of the weakest casts in its history - a bland assortment of inexperienced actors, ex-catalogue models and second-rate high school drama  artistes hired more for their looks than for any talent that they might possess.

Let's look at the roll-call of major actors who have left since the beginning of Bryan Kirkwood's regime:-

•  Barbara Windsor
• Lacey Turner
• Sam Womack
• Pam St Clement
• Sid Owen
• Laurie Brett
• Marc Elliott

Now we can add Nina Wadia to that list. John Partridge was axed because TPTB (that's Kirkwood/Newman) was felt not to have been enough of a stand-alone character to withstand Elliott's departure, although he was the stronger actor, had more potential through better development and had been there longer.

There was no need for Cheryl Fergison's Heather to have been terminated either. Let's be brutally honest: Fergison was sacked, by Kirkwood, because she was fat and over forty. Heather was a good character, more of a background one, and one who could be annoying in her childish innocence; but she was a rarity on the show - a genuinely good person, who bore no illwill to anyone. The writing encompassing Shirley right now - which is Mitchell-revenge-centric - renders Heather, as a character, totally irrelevant; because Shirley's  behaviour now is borne primarily from jealousy of Phil and Sharon, than for any rememberance of Heather.

The first four on that list were very major characters on the show - none more important than Windsor and St Clement - and both of those ladies are sorely missed. It's as though Kirkwood shifted all the old, familiar and comfortable characters out of the equation and stuffed the show with characters of his own creation, at the same time telling us whom they represented and how we were supposed to react to them.

People can slag Coronation Street to their heart's content, and the show has and is going through a bad patch at the moment; but people still return to watch it. Why? Because it hasn't lost its brand. People recognise Corrie as familiar. They know it. Whether that's due to the number of characters who's stayed, long-term, with the show or not, I don't know; but people return to watch because it's something they still know well and recognise.

More than anything, the single complaint I've heard regarding people turning off EastEnders at the moment is simply that they no longer recognise the show. There are no characters in whom they feel emotionally invested. Dot has been off-screen for six months, and I have my doubts whether June Brown, when she returns, will commit past 2013.

Since Grant's departure in 1999, so much has been done to turn Phil Mitchell into a two-dimensional bad man, that people forget he was the more cerebral of the brothers. Even in storylines which are nuanced to show the conflict within himself regarding certain situations - his striving to bond with Ben, the Stella situation, the cacophany of regaining custody of Louise only to have Ben attack Jordan and, as a result of this, lose both his children and his grip on reality - the writing has been so shallow that a generation of viewers see Phil as "Philth."

The same applies with the "evil Janine" syndrome. People watching from the beginning, or at least the early Nineties, would have a perfect understanding of Janine, not as evil, but as defensive, vulnerable and someone who's been betrayed or let down by everyone close to her until she trusts no one but herself. Janine's return could be a brilliant tour de force, where she recognises that she'd been suffering from the stress of a premature birth and sick baby, post-partum depression and a husband who, for some reason, seemed intent only in chipping away at her already fragile self-esteem. She could return and turn the screws mightily on Michael; but it's far easier for the writers/storyliners to resort to "evil Janine" mode.

Ian has been sidelined, rendered virtually non-existant since his return from his breakdown. He's now employed by his nineteen year-old daughter (!) and he's used primarily to babysit Sharon's son whilst Sharon shags Jack Branning.

And speaking of Sharon, the iconic Walford Princess has returned to be ensconced at the court of Queen Tanya, where she serves as chief BFF and shield to mask the Queen's growing dependency on alcohol. On her evenings off, she lives with Jack Branning, whom she shagged within 24 hours of arriving back in Walford. She decided to flirt with him after about a month in order to get a roof over her head - rent-free, I guess. If that doesn't sound like Sharon, you're right. It doesn't. Sharon would never have done these things. What mother would move herself and her child in with a man about whom she knows virtually nothing. For example, if Sharon were to marry Jack, do you think she knows that she would be stepmother to Sam Mitchell's child? Sharon has become a Branning satellite.

And that's the rub of the show at the moment: It's being Branningised. 

The core action on the Square used to be the Queen Vic. Bryan Kirkwood moved the prime action to Max Branning's front room. Carol Jackson, who was the scourge of the Branning family for years, has returned, and - whilst they accept her - she is very much the poor relation of the tribe. Where Billy Mitchell was always the Fool at the Mitchell Court, Bianca has double the honours - not only being the "loser" in the Branning tribe, but also the "loser" in Tribe Beale.

Not a week goes by where we don't see some sort of scene enacted at the Brannings' latest venture, that eyesore the boxing club. Max works the car lot. Tanya the salon. There's a Branning presence in the cafe, at the R and R and now, even in the launderette. MahAliceMahAngel will probably get a market stall or work in the chippie. When Dexter arrives, he'll be working in the Arches - or rather stood in the pub on break from working in the Arches.

Like Invasion of the Body Snatchers, the Brannings have latched onto and are sucking the lifeblood from Sharon. My guess is that Masood will be the next victim, enslaved by the siren Ava, and, thus, the Masoods will become Branning pawns.

Derek is leaving. He couldn't help but leave. I can't remember a time when a character was more unpopular. Tanya is leaving. Let's cut the crap about a vaguely-worded six-month break. The initial announcement was the actress wasn't renewing her contract. That means she's going. All the witter thereafter was panic-stricken PR brought in to deflect any panic amongst the Tanya shippers.

But the Branning departures shouldn't stop there. Why is Joey still around? David Witts went from prancing about in front of a fashion photographer in his undies to acting in the BBC's flagship programme, with no acting experience. He's inarticulate, incomprehensible at dialogue and his acting is simply non-acting. Jasmyn Banks was brought in to soften Derek's image. She didn't. Good-bye.

Jacqueline Jossa is an inexperienced actress whose performances peaked a year ago, and who's happened to believe all the hype written about her since. These people - Jossa, Witts and Banks - are actors whose characters have been moulded to fit them. Result? They don't have to act, just be themselves. Awful easier for lazy writers also, to write dialogue for people they know rather than waste time making up some fictional character. Hey, Vivien Leigh really was Scarlett O'Hara, right?

Scott Maslen knows that EastEnders is his nice little earner. There's no place he could go with such a regular income were he to leave. Besides, the salary pays the school fees.

Result? EastEnders is left with its weakest and most unlikeable cast in its lifetime. No one cares. Even the viewers, many of whom are willing to numbingly accept retcon after retcon after retcon because of yet another sensationalist plot.

These are only some of the problems the show has. The initial problems begin in the writing room and with storyliners. When you have storyliners like this and writers who are part and parcel of BBC's writers' academy doing trial work, what do you expect? Oh, and Simon Ashdown - awards and kudos apart, he's far too cosy with inflicting the Brannings upon us as an alpha family, when they're not. In fact, they're the worst sort of trailer-trash losers - booted and suited and pretending to be middle class.

If 2013 is going to mean we lose the likes of Nina Wadia, whilst we pay homage to the Branning gods and marvel at the kabuki theatre which will see Alfie dump Roxy and return to the cheating ways of Kat (because, you know, that's the way Kat is, and if you love the woman, you have to let her cheat on you), then EastEnders is in a well of trouble, and I don't think Lorraine Newman is the person who can staunch the flow.

Like the Boss says, there's only one way ...

By the way, this Boss ain't Lorraine Newman.