Oh I don't know, until recently I thought they were doing quite well - in fact I'd almost (but not quite) forgiven them the Nigel/roof/deathscream episode. The Helen/Rob, theTony/Tom, the Peggy/Tony/Tom/will, and the Jill burglary storylines are all examples of what The Archers does well - stories that have their roots well back in characters' backstory and involve playing out consistent personalities over many years. The Tom/Brenda/wedding dress saga is a bit overdone, but they've always gone over the top on their light-relief plotlines - witness the Christmas Pantomime every flipping year. They responded well to the flooding - not their fault that they flooded the Bull just when the floods in real life were dying down.
But - SPOILER ALERT - what dramatic purpose are they trying to serve with the Ruth developments, given that Mike and Vicky have already played out most of the potential of the older-parents storyline, and (although they haven't made much of it once the brat was accepted into the family) they also had "Rory" [insert vowels to choice] to illustrate the complexities of older parents and siblings of wildly different ages? If they simply want to ensure a spread of ages in the main Archer families for future years, well, in addition to Henry, they've got Tom, Pip and Alice all with high sprogging potential (any of whom would be more plausible for a failure-of-contraception plot as well), or they could just bring back Kate and her kids...