What did Lucy do wrong on this task? What did David do so well? I missed that.

Well, for the presentation, Lucy died on her arse trying to get the grumpy kids to put on the paint, David in the mascot suit got them going, and even Nick said he saved the Presentation, David AND Lucy were both angling for a Dance around the world theme rather than the recycling one of Ashleighs' and in fact David kept trying for it even when Lucy gave in, there are 2 examples. But as I have said (several times ) I dont think Lucy or David deserved to go , Ashleigh should have gone for her pigheaded attitude, she only agreed (gracelessly) to drop the recycling bit and go with the messy art part of her Masterplan, if she had listened to Lucy and David and gone with the dance around the world one then they may have avoided the Boardroom altogether.

Ashleigh has to bring 2 people back. Lucy has done well previously and got most right on this task. The two Ashleigh has to bring back with her are inevitable once she decides that bringing Lucy back is unfair, dangerous as Lucy will focus attention on her not listening to Lucy, and she will be torn apart by Lord Sugar for bringing the wrong person back.

She doesn't have to get to stage two and think tactically about David's abysmal record, or that that it is a fair reflection of his lack of ability, or that she and all the others want to get him out as he's dead weight. She doesn't even have to note that Lord Sugar wanted to get rid of David last week for another non-performance, or that he signalled her very clearly that he would find enough fault with David to send him home this week.

Same with Andrew . There no reason for him to be there except he isn't Lucy.

The question is even easier for Lord Sugar. He wants to get rid of David because his record is terrible.He clearly would have fired him last week given any chance. He rates Lucy and Ashleigh - and Ashleigh has credit she can bank. Andrew has mde a surprisingly bad impression, but no one but Patrick has been as bad as David. David has to go.

Ok fine, I give up Im actually looking forward to the next episodes as now their scapegoat has gone they will either have to up their game or find another scapegoat.... should be interesting

I think Patrick or Andrew will be the new scapegoat...

Did anyone notice that Lord Sugar phrased his question to Ashleigh about who would be in the final boardroom in an unusual way? Usually he asks the project manager who they are bringing back in, but on this occasion, he asked her who she was going to let go back to the house...

It's interesting that Sugar normally gets really annoyed with any losing PM who says he/she selected someone for the boardroom because of what happened in previous tasks.

Didn't trouble Sugar this time.

And the start of episode 5 summarised, as always, the previous episode (the afternoon tea task). On the results being announced, Sugar said "David, your team bailed you right out of trouble here".

It's no surprise that he fired David (whether or not people agree with his decision).

I don't know why that angers him... he always says that people have to be shrewd and look out for themselves, and that is surely the point of the programme. If I was a candidate, I would bring people back who had bad track records over people who had good ones, and I'd be honest about why I was doing it as well. If I brought back two people who he was never going to fire, even if they did badly on that task, it wouldn't look good for me.

Just saw the start of last week's episode, where the contestants gather together to play the video of Blofeld on an iPad, speaking from his underground lair as he sets out the task.

The contestants are about to play the video. A few stragglers haven't come downstairs yet. So Andrew says "All right guys, come down here". (Fair enough).

In contrast, Maria says "Hurry up you lazy boy, come on".

Was she taught no manners? What a low EQ she must have (EQ, not IQ).

...also, in the same summary of the afternoon tea task, Maria is shown in the boardroom saying "Sorry, I need to calm down because... can I just breathe for a second? Because I know that I'm actually going to get VERY angry here".

I find that really worrying. Especially at her age.

Lucy was doing well enough. David had the advantage of being in a funny costume.

Besides, I doubt if Lord Sugar is looking for a childrens playleader.

I can't recall exactly what had happened at that point, but I do remember feeling at the time that Alice had just said something unfair and untrue about Maria and not being surprised Maria was angry.

Lucy "would you like to have your face painted?"
Child "no" (grumps).
Lucy "oh".

Anyway Im not playing anymore the scapegoat is gone, no point in arguing about it so we shall tune in next episode and see who the next "Fallguy will be!"

Yeah, one kid was a bit awkward so Lucy sucks. I don't think so.

David did nothing much in the previous tasks. He really isn't a scapegoat.

He's a Lord. He doesn't have to be consistent or even that logical- last week he argued that something was unsellable and that it wasn't novel as other people were doing it.

He doesn't like people doing what he thinks is his job or throwing arguments at him because people think he will like that argument. That means saying X is better than Y, or X has done better over the weeks than Y often gets a rebuke, as does sounding if you are obviously trying to manouver him. The best people though can read him really well and can nail the right argument that will appeal to him - and people like Stuart Bagg have done well in the past knowing know how to appeal to his instincts.

This time, the team didn't have to open up David's record as it had been opened for them by Lord Sugar and they could bring it in anyway by suggesting that it was the usual problem when asked about his performance.

It seems he's got a pretty good idea of who he's interested in - which may be based on performance - but may be based on what they are interested in and what he can do for them. Not sure he will want to be popping to distant parts of the UK either - so geography may matter too. The interesting bit was how he seems to have written Andrew off at the same time as the girls had negative things to say too - you wonder whats happened there. He's already written off Patrick, and raised questions about Navdeep, and he now has Ashleigh stepping back. Maria is on report, and after her there's not many candidates left.

Also their secret business plan is a factor. It was embarrassing last time when he had to not let the obviously best candidate win because he was just going to spend the money on university fees. People with rubbish ideas are very likely to be fired before the final.

I didn't think that was very embarrassing... James and Zara were both very capable, and it must have been so difficult to choose between them. Then he asked them what they would do with the money, and at that point it became clear who should win. And she won.

Except Zara proved she was embarrassingly inept as a film-maker in the ad task, and that was the business she wanted investment in. I wonder how her business is doing now?

I think she did quite well in that task. She made a good advert and they won the task, and it wasn't even a fluke's win like some of them are (although it was a close call between them and the other team.) Zara did what Harry M failed to do - she listened to her team when they told her about the market research. Harry M has a clear idea of what he wanted, and refused to listen to anyone else, so he might as well have been on a team by himself. I also thought Zara did exceptionally well on the other film-making task, when they made the Piggy Panic viral.

Zara is at boarding school now, so I imagine that her business hasn't taken off yet.

Piggy Panic was total balls. The ad was terrible. She showed NO ability as a film-maker. Just my opinion - James should've won except he had no business idea - hence I am saying this series will not let anyone without a good business idea anywhere near the final - and they don't tell us what the business plans of the fired were, so we can't tell if that was a factor in their firing - as i suspect it is.

Well, that's just your opinion. Personally, I liked both of Zara's ads. I would have played Piggy Panic over Crazy Cabinet - partly because of the advert, but mainly just because I like that kind of game. We all have different opinions, maybe you just don't like her style, but the fact that she'd been fairly successful at doing that even before Young Apprentice shows that there must be quite a few people who appreciate her work.

I get it, you all fancy Lucy and when men fancy a girl she can do no wrong, can we please just drop this now? I dont want Lucy to go anymore than you do, I think she is perfectly competent, but I think David got a bum deal by the other apprentices as they singled him out right from the start, you all keep banging on about editing in relation to the girls, does it not occur to you that maybe David was being edited badly too? or does that only apply to pretty girls.?

Sorry boys just got back from Christmas shopping and was spoiling for a fight ignore my previous post. (except the bit about editing, I meant that bit ).

I can't speak for the other posters, but for me at least, it has nothing to do with who we find attractive. Ashleigh had to bring in two out of Andrew, David and Lucy. I do think she made the right choice, because if she had brought Lucy back, she (Ashleigh) would certainly have been fired, because Lucy would have focussed on how they might have won if Ashleigh had listened to her. Bringing back David, however, was a lot more sensible, not only because he did not argue the point as eloquently as Lucy did, but also because in previous tasks he has proven himself to be a weak candidate - and bringing him back paid off, because she got him fired. Their has to be some level of selfishness as to who you bring back. Sugar would never have fired Lucy on this task, she's done well throughout, she did nothing wrong on the task and she is a lot more personable than David. She is a strong contender to win - David would never have won, even if Ashleigh had let him go. He is arrogant, weak on the tasks, and while he did better than Ashleigh in that task, overall she has been far better than him. If Lord Sugar is going to think about the whole series when choosing who to fire, than as a losing project manager, you have to think like that as well, otherwise you'll just dig your own grave by bringing people back who aren't going to go.

I know you took it back, but The Apprentice has been running for about ten years and I've never seen much evidence of people favouring the candidates they find most physically attractive.

It was clear why the others might have singled him out early on . You can edit incidents, but it would take some doing to produce multiple consistent examples all showing the same thing week on week - with all the other candidates, the advisers and Lord Sugar all noting the same things. He was a pretty unique combination of someone who asserted himself, but then showed lack of ability . If he had been quieter, they may have taken longer to reach a conclusion. David kept on asserting that he taught others and was chairman of multiple things , but the more he said it, the more it contrasted with any ability on display. The others who took a high profile tended to be the abler or more articulate people, and the weaker candidates had the good sense to hide more and be seen making fewer mistakes. Patrick has concealed his weaknesses better - he was only shown up when he led, and was often invisible . Stephen and Andrew remain relative unknowns. Navdeep has been relatively reserved, hiding any ability she has. David was impossible to miss. His English skills were weak, and he confirmed the impression by seeming to be unable to understand the good arguments put to him, and replying to any question, or need for a decision, with often meaningless waffle. The others only needed to see that once to realise they couldn't afford to vote for him as their PM. He did this in the boardroom too, so that even Lord Sugar noted his inability to answer a question, and eventually discounted his win as PM as other people's work. On the other side of the equation, at least half of the group is made up of academic very high flyers and the conrast will have been obvious to them.