Eurovision 2012 - 22/24/26 May 2012

She nailed the accent dead on! Fooled me.

Is it the uk fault we didn't win? we don't take it serious ..we put rubbish acts in to represent us and when we don't win we all moan and blame political and neighbouring countrys giving their neighbours highe points which is basically true aswell. Well except our neighbour ireland we gave 8 they gave us a measly 4

There are two easy explanations to the high amount of points (10 actually!) the UK gave Ireland - (a) Jedward, who are as inexplicitly popular in the UK as they are here and (b) Northern Ireland viewers vote in the UK televote and not the Irish one, which gives Ireland a head start already. Not to mention the huge Irish ex-pat community in Great Britain.

The opposite doesn't hold through for Ireland (and there is still, unfortunately, in parts of Ireland, a "burn everything British except their coal" mentality) , though the points we gave the UK still accounted for a third of the UK's final score.

I don't think the BBC really want to win the competition right now.

Yep, I thought that the UK entry this year was far more respectable than our entries in 2010, 2008 or previous, but it suffered for being a simple song and going on first. Not that it was going to win or anything, but to lump it in with Scooch, Andy Abraham et al would be unfair - it was much more classy than that. I was also surprised that Denmark was so low, as I really liked their song. But there we are - it's still an excellent night's entertainment, and I hope that we do continue to enter in the years to come as it's just a bit of fun, really!

I'm relieved - after reading some of the posts here - that I *don't* take the show as seriously as some. What a turgid affair it would be to be frustrated year after year that, "Britain doesn't take it seriously enough to win" or that our biggest stars "wouldn't touch it with a bargepole". At least Rob says he's bored with singing competitions completely, so gives it a wide berth,

The notion that we should pass it to a commercial channel to milk it for profit is hideous (especially when coupled with the naive notion that the profit would be used to find "talent" - HA!), and the proposition that we should get po-faced about it and lose a quarter of the viewers as "acceptable losses" in the process is just baffling.

I think most in the UK watch it on a similar basis to that which I do - an enjoyable evening of spectacle, songs, charm and (a little) excitement.

I thought there was a lack of energy in the arena - especially at the end, but waiting up til midnight (local) to start a marathon of song was always going to be tricky.

Other than that, I'm very excited for next year, in which I don't think for a minute we will win either. So what?

I agree, Gavin, that we should not take it so seriously. I think my beef is with the fact that we're a major financial source for the whole competition. Why should this remain the case? We routinely receive so few votes, pretty much regardless of the quality of our entry, such that I believe anyone who outright denies that block voting exists is deluded. Yes, it may have something to do with the song we enter, but a large part of it is a general hatred of the UK from most of Europe (be it for whatever reason - colonialism, Iraq, beer-guzzling holiday/football hooligans etc) or if not hatred for us then a preference for one's neighbours. So, my question is - why do we remain a major financial contributor? Yes we get an evening's entertainment out of it but wouldn't it be fairer to insist that every participating country has to contribute an equal amount? I don't see why we should be propping up Europe in this way too.

I don't see the problem with the BBC paying a significant part of the costs - if we were to withdraw funding just because don't win then that would be very childish.

For the amount of money paid, it represents a good evening's entertainment which is, for whatever reasons, watched by millions of people. I think it could be argued that it represents pretty good value for money compared to other commissions.

And by contributing financially, the BBC gets a say in how the contest operates.

I take a similar view as Gavin, it's a good night and something to get excited about but the dedicated fans getting uptight isn't required as it just results in excuses and "everybody hates us".

Besides, Spain have been waiting a lot longer than we have for a win - and undoubtedly tend to try much harder.

There's certainly a chunk of money involved - but producing so many hours of primetime TV is always going to have a cost to it. Whether its value for money is going to have strong arguments on both sides. I pay my fee and I think it is - but then, I don't watch football (highlights or anything else), am not overly fussed with tennis - so I could say the same about Wimbledon and footy.

Is is less value for money when we come second to last? Would no one think it was expensive nonsense if we won it, or came in second? I'm not sure one can seriously make that stance.

There's more "pro-neighbour" voting than "anti-UK" I think. We did it with Ireland too - we nearly always have them in our top three, don't we? That's no more "legitimate" because we happen to know Jedward from a UK show than those countries in Europe who regularly vote for countries on their borders.

As to why we don't all pay the same - we're richer than most. It's as simple as that. As is Germany and France, and although they placed higher than us, they didn't win the trophy either.

Its hardly propping up Europe. Be glad we're not in the Euro.

Just for the record, the UK last won in 1997 (15 years ago). Total 5 wins 1967, 1969 (shared), 1976, 1981, 1997.
Spain last won in 1969 (43 years ago). Total 2 wins 1968, 1969 (shared)

There is some degree of politics involved (and noone moans when Ireland give us points with the exact same principle) but if Jade Ewen can get 173 points then all we need to do is send out a good act and hope for a decent result from the order draw.

As has been said many times the amount of money we pay to enter the contest is relatively low, even if it is considered high enough for us to be in the big 5. The big 5 doesn't just exist because of the money each country pays but also because the pressence of these countries in the contest is particularly important in terms of attracting sponsors to the contest which helps to keep the cost of participation down.

Remember that for the money they pay (equivelent to half an episode of Casualty apparently) they are getting over 7 hours of high definition television AND radio programming, and they dont even use it all. The final constantly attracts huge audiences in the UK and was the most watched programme last night. Regardless of how well we do in the show itself the amount of money the BBC must be saving on paying a regular Saturday night on BBC1 and Radio 2 as well as the two nights on BBC3 must be substantial. There's simply no reason why they should withdraw.