I must admit I was expecting a mid-table finish for Mollie, something on the left hand side of the board anyway! The song grew on me in the run up to the contest but it really left me a little bit cold on the night, though I don't quite know why. No key change... no standout staging? Not sure... I think the UK really has become rather complacent about the Eurovision, just expecting what we believe to be our world-class songwriting skills to shine through. Sadly we haven't submitted a world-class song IMO since "It's My Time".
On the Scottish thing, it depends if the SBS (or whatever BBC Scotland becomes known as) becomes a full member of the EBU. I imagine it will, and the BBC website I think did say that it would mean a separate entry from Scotland would be possible. However I don't know whether the reduced individual financial contributions of the SBS and BBC mean that either remain in the 'Big Five' and would therefore have to compete in the Semi Finals. STV is also a full member of the EBU, so I suppose if the SBS didn't join there is a scenario where the Song Contest would air on the BBC in England, Wales and NI and on STV in Scotland... which would be very odd indeed!
In a way, perhaps if the BBC did end up competing in the Semis, there might be a little less complacency here...
UK population is currently 64million including around 5million in Scotland. If Scotland leaves I doubt a <10% drop will mean the BBC is no longer Big Five. (Plus the EBU would still want the remaining BBC to remain Big 5 so would probably change the rules. The show rates really well here...)
I think its pretty obvious that the "Big 5" membership has absolutely nothing to do with population.
IIRC broadcasters contribute somewhere around £100k to enter, or about £300k for "Big 5". That money goes up when you start having to pay for staff hotels, transport and other necessary bits and bobs. Then there is the cost of Hosting if you win, which is into the millions. (Russia allegedly spent around £30million to host)
So despite the fact that the Daily Mail moan about the fact we dont win and its a "waste of lisence payers money" ...they'd moan even more if we won it and had to host.
So what if the BBC are basically paying lip service to Eurovision. Its still better and cheaper than The Voice.
PS. Off on a slight tangent... I personally think that countries with larger populations should have more voting power.
PS. Off on a slight tangent... I personally think that countries with larger populations should have more voting power.
That goes against one of the major principles of Eurovision - that Malta and Cyprus have the same power as Russia and Germany, that whatever your size, you had an equal say. It gives everyone a level playing field. After all you only enter one song each - and the juries are the same size in every country.
The minute you start weighting based on population the whole voting sequence would be cut and dried based on the results of a few large countries. Would be the end of the competition.
Last edited by noggin on 16 September 2014 11:19am
PS. Off on a slight tangent... I personally think that countries with larger populations should have more voting power.
That goes against one of the major principles of Eurovision - that Malta and Cyprus have the same power as Russia and Germany, that whatever your size, you had an equal say. It gives everyone a level playing field. After all you only enter one song each - and the juries are the same size in every country.
The minute you start weighting based on population the whole voting sequence would be cut and dried based on the results of a few large countries. Would be the end of the competition.
Is it fair on the voters though? Currently each voter doesn't have an equal say. Voter x's votes are worth more than voter y's just because of where he/she lives. It should be fairer on the voters if each voter's vote was worth the same amount in contributing to the contest's final result. ie. it shouldn't matter in which of the Eurovision countries you live, your vote would/should (in theory) be treated equally - in terms of contribution to the final score/winner (it might not be based on population - as in some countries a higher % of the population may vote than in others - but could be based on number from each country actually voting). It may or may not be beneficial to the contest but that way should be a fairer system to the each voter watching the contest.
Last edited by Neo on 16 September 2014 3:45pm - 2 times in total
But Eurovision is not X Factor or Europe's Got Talent. The Televoting is a recent innovation... And you can't make it one member one vote as you can vote multiple times. If you go down that route presumably you also have to evaluate how much it costs to vote related to GDP and decide that it it is more expensive to vote in one country than another then that vote should be worth more... That way lies madness.
Why would Andorra bother entering if their vote would be counteracted by that of Scunthorpe?! (Roughly the same populations)
Eurovision is NOT a general election. It is NOT a European election. It's a TV show. It was created to bring Europe together. Allowing every country to have an equal say IS the defining feature of the contest. Whether you are Malta or Sweden, Cyprus or Russia, The UK or Ireland, you all have the same say. THAT is incredibly powerful. THAT is what it is about. Anyone who tries to give one country more votes because it is bigger, or because a greater proportion of the population voted is missing the entire point.
If you allow pro-rota voting you end up with the large countries deciding the winner. It would be incredibly dull. Small countries would not enter. No-one would watch. Contest would be axed.