Block voting, neighbour voting- whatever you call it. It ruins the competition. The UK & Ireland situation is very different to some of these other countries, its not like we give Ireland 12 points every single year or vice versa. The UK have finished in the bottom 5 for most of the last 10 years, but theyve often had better songs than many other countries who score higher. Yes Engleberts song was rubbish but there were other songs which deserved to do worse than him.

We've pretty much tried every single approach possible, haven't we? Voted for by the public, decided by industry experts, chosen by the BBC. Same result more or less. Blue were supposed to be big in Europe but in the end they could only deliver borderline respectable results. You sense that's probably about as good as it's ever going to get for us now.

Maybe we should just withdraw, I don't know. I'm not too fussed about it either way. It's just a bit of fluff brought down by the bit at the end that instead of being the big finale it should be is a bit of a damp squib because the whole vote is just predictable and boring. I don't really think it matters what entry we put out.

We came 11th which to be fair is good by our recent standards. And Blue actually came 5th in the televote - it was the combined jury vote which pushed us down.

The fact that Sweden have won does give some hope though, the song has won tonight rather than block voting. Lloyd Webber inspired a fifth(or thereabouts) place finish a few years ago for UK-its not completely out of the question for the UK.

A song & performer that didn't fit Eurovision, combined with the regional voting and the awful 1st position slot all combined to give us that very poor performance.

Remember Blue came 11th last year, so it's not as if it's a given that we would come near bottom every year.

It'll be interesting to see what they do next year. It's also doubtful that Jedward will be back next year so 2011 may be the ratings peak for a while.

Exactly. If the song is good, people will vote. I'm not saying there isn't block voting going on, of course there is, but the best song almost always wins in the end. As it did tonight, with Sweden.

Norway won with 387 points 3 years ago and this year they came last with 7 points!

Sweden didn't qualify for the final 2 years ago and this year they won!

All block voting eh


They came fifth in the televote. It was the jury vote that pulled them down because they messed up big time in their rehersal [which the jury votes on]

Exactly. This is the 13th different country to win in 13 years (Sweden won 14 years ago), so although there are the obvious voting patterns mainly due to culture rather than politics they don't actually have any bearing on the winner. I doubt there are many other events in the world too where in 13 stagings it's been won by 13 different winners.


You were obviously brainwashed by the years of Wogan commentary. IMO Graham Norton has a much better take on it - he doesn't ignore the voting patterns but gives credit where credit is due and informs viewers of the acts who are popular across Europe, and gets the right balance between taking the piss and showing respect.

It's also worth noting other countries have really upped their game in recent years bringing in big name stars both locally and international to contribute to the song in some way.

Exactly!!

Honestly, all this "Europe hates us" nonsense is incredibly tedious.

For the last 12 years the BBC have made very little effort. In the mid noughties they were literally going through record companiy bins for songs for Making your mind up and this year they only started asking possible artists in Mid January!!
When nearly every other country had their possible selection finalists and songs ready.

The last time made an even half arsed effort was with ALW and we came 5th with a decent song.

I'm not saying their isn't cultural/political voting going on there is a small bit of bias but the juries have eliminated most of it.

Would the UK have come 2nd tonight if they had sent grannies singing exactly like how those Russian grannies did tonight? Nope - we'd have come more like 22nd! Okay, if we'd have an amazing song, we'd have a better chance of winning. But in terms of average 'filler' songs, the UKs 'filler' songs simply dont score anywhere near as well as the 'filler' songs from certain other countries.

Ultimately if our song is good people will vote for it. Unfortunately our entry this year was very poor and the result was deserved. The BBC need to either take more care when sorting out our entry or just abandon the whole thing because it's embarrassing.

People forget that the UK came 5th overall as recently as 2009 so it is very much possible for us to do well with the right song, artist and promotion (2009 was the year Lloyd Webber got involved and the girl he found promoted the song across Europe before the event). To do well it needs to be taken more seriously, simple as that.

Maybe not, but if we sent grannies we would deserve to come 22nd. You seem to think we should just get points for the sake of it. There is block voting to an extent, but the years when we have made an effort we HAVE done well (Jade Ewen came 5th in 2009, Blue came 11th in 2011, coming 5th in the televote). The years we send shite, we get the points we deserve. Accept that the BBC made no effort with our entry this year. There's no desire to win the contest at the Beeb hence the constant entries which are far better suited to the 1980s than 2012.

The best song almost always wins. As Jake pointed out, Sweden didn't even qualify for the final two years ago. But they sent a massive star with a massive song and they *shock, horror* won!

This is sort of the point Im making. If we send rubbish like the russian grannies, yes we deserve to come 22nd, and as I said earlier tonight the Humps song was rubbish. But loads of other countries send loads of rubbish which come in the top 10. This just shows what a big disadvantage the UK are automatically at compared to some of these other nations. It's not really a fair contest.

Yes, and I have already acknowledged that. So maybe you should acknowledge that when the UK does actually make an effort we do much better....

The UKs effort in 2004 was quite good in my opinion but that only came 16th. Last years effort was much more than other countries' efforts and still placed only 11th while some rubbish from other countries with little effort took up places in the top 10.

You seem to be glossing over our 5th place in 2009. I can only assume it's because it disproves your point.

A 5th place with all the promotion and effort put into the song that year was considered quite disappointing at the time. There were expectations of it to come in the top 3 or even win it, but it did quite badly in the viewer vote in the end. It was only the jury vote which helped it to 5th place. That kind of promotion, in which the singer was sent around lots of different countries was way more effort than loads of other countries have made to get to 5th place.

Englebert Humperdinck mucked up the jury performance this year as well which may go some way in explaining the result.

Mind you, Loreen choked on some fake snow during her jury performance and won by a landslide...

You obviously have your view so I'll leave you to it Sam. I will just refer you back to Jake's post. I think the idea of tactical voting goes right out the window when countries like Sweden can still win.

If you think we deserved to do well tonight then each to their own, but IMO we sent a terribly weak and forgettable song and we deserved everything we got.

If they were natural and authentic then who knows!

The past 'kitsch' acts we have sent like Scooch and Daz Sampson were outdated parodies of what we ''think' is Eurovision and beyond awful.
The grannies were natural and entertaing , something Scooch or Daz could ever be accused off.

Google and You Tube Melodifestivalen and laugh at the difference that Sweden puts into the contest in comparison to the Beeb's back of fag packet selection.

Ive already said I dont think we deserved to do well tongiht because the song was rubbish. But there were a lot worse songs in my view which deserved to have even fewer points than the UK, yet ended up in the top 15. I do admit though that the BBC could be making more of an effort for selection process.

If the hot weather means the Eurovision rating is down, will we be spared a repeat of the year (last year?) when the Ratings Thread spent the day after Eurovision trying to work out how to transfer the contest to ITV1?

Haha, I remember that actually happening. I think the discussion will be more how it wouldn't work on commerical TV tomorrow.

well now youve bought it up