Eurovision 2013 - 14/16/18 May 2013

I often think the 'it's all political' is an easy excuse for us. I can understand why it was attributed in the early 2000s, when the contest was going through huge changes and mediocre songs were winning.

If you look at who's won it recently though, it's hard to say that bloc voting influences the winner. Germany, Norway and Sweden have won it recently - with good songs. I personally loved the Azerbaijani entry that won in Dusseldorf, and they had put loads into winning it. Their song the previous year 'Drip Drop' had some big names choreographing and writing for it.

So the political bloc voting becomes a way for us to justify our constantly poor songs and poor performances. I think a contest in London would be great for the competition...if Moscow 2009 was the Beijing Olympics of Eurovision, then London would be like, well, the London Olympics.

I'd say the BBC should move the semis to BBC2 next year, I've had a look at what is being shown in BBC2 at the time of the semis this year and it's Auction Hero and Keeping Britain Alive. I'm pretty sure the view count for Eurovision would be higher than that if these programmes. Or the BBC should try and make a BBC3 HD happen or a red button HD service? Though I don't think it's possible for Freeview viewers.

The UK lose because the BBC are sending acts like Engleburt Humperdink and Bonne Tyler. It would be shocking if we're even close to the Top 20 this year.

Perhaps it's time to axe the "big 5" getting a pass to the final. I don't think it would hurt ratings for the main event itself as frankly nobody watches it because of the UK act (especially now), while having to qualify might make the BBC at least treat it with some respect once again.

This is exactly what I thought when they announced the artist. They've made the same mistake.

The BBC aren't entering it to win, they're finding artists that were once big and you would never expect to enter, but also have a new album they want to flog/a comeback they want to make, and then the BBC are reaping the rewards with the high ratings they bring along with them and none of the costs of an NF.

I gather that there's a change in the voting weighting used in calculating the national points this year,

Every entry, not just the top ten, has to be ranked Linearly, both by the Jury and the Audience votes. These totals are then combined to produce the

12-10-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-1 sequence..

It's hoped that this will introduce some consistency with both the Jury and Audience votes. Wide variations between the two will see lower National scores awarded for those entries than at present.

What was the situation before for those outside the top ten?

Previously I think the jury generated a 12-10-8-7...1 and the televoting generated a 12-10-8-7...1 and the two were combined. It's a subtle difference - but an interesting one.

Yep - good songs win these days. That's the reality.

Yep - and (as with many successful things in Eurovision) most of those names were Swedish (!)



I'd love to see Stockholm host an Olympics then!

I doubt that would happen. Because the UK doesn't enter a semi-final we have far less interest in watching it. The audience is really only die-hard Eurovision fans. It would be a big sell to get a BBC Two controller to accept 4 hours of Eurovision semi-final in peak, and a technical argument about HD availability certainly wouldn't be enough, particularly as almost all of BBC Two's output is commissioned in HD these days...

BBC Three are kind of forced into showing it because it has to be broadcast in order for the BBC to enter the main contest. Technically the BBC only have to show the semi-final we vote in - but I think they are aware that there IS a small but vocal audience for the semi-final - so they may as well show both.

The EBU are terrified of the UK, Germany or France (not sure about Spain and Italy) dropping out of the contest if they didn't make the final. It nearly happened after Germany failed to qualify in 1996 - hence the rule change...

It isn't just about the licensing fees (they make up a relatively small, though still important, proportion of the programme budget these days) - it's about the largest countries in the heart of Europe not taking part. Also, the big 5 are huge ratings contributors to the contest. Would viewing figures be as high in those countries if they weren't present? (And those figures are key to attracting sponsorship deals)

The BBC are aiming to get great ratings for the contest in the UK - that's their aim. Sending well-known performers is not a bad route to go down with this in mind.

Certainly a better route than spending a lot of money (but probably not quite enough) on a national final that (hopefully) selects the least-worst of a bad bunch who nobody has ever heard of, and has little interest in watching compete...

We (Eurovision fans) have to accept that, unlike most of the other countries in Europe, the Eurovision is NOT a huge event in our music industry's calendar. It doesn't offer one of the only routes to success for a performer, composer, songwriter etc. It won't attract the country's leading talent - they don't need it. In other countries it does, because they do.

Yes, I know this is a generalisation, but the reality is that no major label would put up a current, successful chart act to represent the UK. It doesn't offer the same incentive as it does in other countries, where it may provide one of their only routes to Europe-wide promotion.

The BBC is there because it's a cracking TV show that people love watching. No other reason.