Eurovision 2011 prediction : the final

Welcome along to my fourth annual attempt to predict the result of the Eurovision Song Contest final. Now, as I may possibly have made reference to once or twice before, I successfully picked the winner in 2008, 2009 and 2010 - and for good measure I got the top three in the correct order last year. So what does that tell you? Yup, that's right, it tells you that the law of averages is about to kick in and as a result I'm going to fall flat on my face. But am I deterred? Pah! Not a bit of it.

To my mind the three class songs in the field are France, Germany and Hungary. The fact that 50% of the vote goes to juries comprised of musical professionals should mean that the cream has a fair chance of rising to the top this time, but even so I think we can safely rule Hungary out of contention. Kati Wolf's vocals have been a wee bit shy of perfect, and in any case dance tracks have such an atrocious record in the public vote that I'm not sure even a good placing with the juries will be able to save her.

As I mentioned when I ventured my pre-rehearsals prediction a few weeks ago, I think the puzzle at the heart of this Eurovision is whether France will win by a country mile, or won't win at all - I don't think there's going to be a middle way. I'm not really any closer to solving that puzzle, and if younger televoters don't go for the song, it wouldn't completely surprise me if France finished well down the leaderboard. But the next question is "if not France, then who?", and having watched the semi-finals and seen some of the rehearsals, no-one is really leaping out at me. The obvious answer a couple of weeks ago might have appeared to be the UK's Blue, but the general view is that they've been underperforming. Jedward are clearly going down a storm for Ireland assisted by some inspired staging (and also by the fact that the "backing" vocalists are doing the singing for them), but it's hard not to feel that the juries will mark them less favourably than the public. So, almost by default, I'm plumping for France as the winners, but without a huge amount of confidence. Here is my top five...

Winners - France (Sognu - Amaury Vassili)
2nd - Germany (Taken By a Stranger - Lena Meyer-Landrut)
3rd - Ireland (Lipstick - Jedward)
4th - UK (I Can - Blue)
5th - Denmark (New Tomorrow - A Friend in London)

Possible dark horses - Austria, Estonia

Of the obvious favourites, I've left out Azerbaijan simply because I don't think the song is strong enough, although it certainly can't be discounted altogether because it's beautifully staged and choreographed. I changed my mind at least five times about whether to have Denmark or Austria in fifth place - Austria have the better singer and a more favourable draw, but I think the anthemic Danish song is slightly more memorable.

I have Lena of Germany pipping Jedward to second place for a couple of reasons - we know from past experience that she'll nail the vocals on the night, and she'll probably be preferred by the juries. But for all that and everything, Taken By a Stranger is such a laid-back, offbeat, ice-cool entry that I just struggle to see it winning Eurovision outright. So I suppose what I'm saying is that if France do falter, Jedward may find themselves next in line for victory, which is...well, a startling thought.

With Ireland, France and the UK all in genuine contention, tonight's result could have some significance in the overall history of the contest. If either France or the UK win, they'll move clear of the other and of Luxembourg to become the second most successful country in Eurovision history with six victories - just one behind Ireland. But if Ireland notch up their eighth win, they'll move three clear of the others once again. One curiosity is that six of Ireland's seven victories to date occurred in the 1980s and 90s, whereas the most recent of France's wins was as far back as 1977 - although to be fair they couldn't have come much closer in 1991, losing to Sweden on the countback rule.

One prediction that is an absolute banker for this evening is that the UK public will want to award twelve points to Ireland (although whether the UK jury will play ball with that is another matter). And Ireland may even return the compliment, although I must admit that when I heard the Icelandic entry the first thought that went through my head was "douze points from Ireland".

Eurovision reflections

I think at this time last year I managed a decent-length post on this topic, but I'm in one of those frames of mind where I think I'd struggle to string together a decent sentence, let alone seven proper paragraphs. Perhaps a numbered list of the main points will do to be getting on with!

1) Still don't quite get Norway, but it was obvious even to me it was going to win. The 'most points ever' thing I do find slightly odd.

2) I'm surprised and thrilled that Iceland finished second - when I predicted fourth place for them last night I actually worried that might be a touch on the high side. It genuinely is one of my all-time favourite Eurovision songs, so I'm glad Europe went for it (unlike some of my other favourites down the years!).

3) On second thoughts, maybe I wasn't so foolish in voting for Out of Control in the Greek national final!

4) The notion that Graham Norton and Andrew Lloyd-Webber were putting about that 'this is a music contest again'...well, any UK Eurovision fan will always be grateful for some positive spin at last, but it might be a touch premature in this case. The result tonight was actually remarkably similar to 2006 - a worthy runaway winner from western Europe masking the huge amount of political voting that was still going on. Romania and Moldova swapped votes, Andorra voted for Spain, Cyprus voted for Greece, Finland voted for Estonia (their neighbours and linguistic cousins), and it was pretty close to business as usual in the Balkans. I'm sure there were plenty of other examples I can't think of off the top of my head.

5) I wanted Paddy O'Connell to succeed Terry Wogan - but I was wrong. Graham Norton was excellent tonight, with exactly the right blend of cynicism, absurdity and positivity where it was warranted. It was only on the latter element that Terry Wogan has been found wanting in recent years.

6) The one area in which Norton was inferior to Wogan was in his failure to anticipate the most predictable political voting. Wogan would have predicted the destination of Andorra and Cyprus' douze points several seconds in advance - whereas Norton was seriously wondering if Andorra might be Patricia Kaas fans!

7) Norton also tried to maintain the tension for the last half-hour of voting on the question of whether the UK would stay in the top five, even though that was never in doubt. What was very close was the race for fourth place between Turkey and the UK, but he seemed totally oblivious to that!

8) As a UK supporter, I thought we had a genuine chance for all of about twenty seconds. When the first set of votes gave us ten points and Norway twelve it looked possible - but as soon as we got zero from the second set of votes I knew it was going to be a patchy night.

9) Why, oh why, oh why didn't I take Keith Mills seriously to task this year rather than last year over his anti-UK agenda? His initial prediction for It's My Time yesterday was 16th-20th, which he very generously hardened up to 16th in his final call. And what do you know? He's brazenly glossing over the fact that he got it so spectacularly wrong. Now there's a surprise.

10) Talking of Mr Mills, he does have this tendency to utterly convince himself that something very improbable is true and then flog the point to death in spite of a mass of contradictory evidence. A good example this year was his assumption that Lloyd-Webber was on the stage solely to impress the juries - from which he concluded it was likely to 'backfire' because the voting public would dislike it. But where is the slightest evidence that was ever the UK's thinking? For my money Lloyd-Webber was on stage to impress both the juries and the public with his celebrity - whether it worked or not I don't know, but I've little doubt that was always the idea.

11) Alsou was a good choice as host (pity she didn't get a chance to sing in place of the unfunny interludes), and I actually quite liked the intervention from space. Wasn't that done when the contest was in Latvia as well?

12) I actually made two slightly different predictions last night (one on Politicalbetting.com and one here), and I should have stuck with the first one because it was more accurate! I got last-minute cold feet about the UK's potential for a top five placing.

13) I'm surprised how poorly both Portugal and Malta did.

14) In the end I simply couldn't decide - so I voted for both Portugal and Estonia! At least Estonia received the decent placing they richly deserved.

So here's to Oslo 2010. As I hinted above, I hope the EBU look at tweaking the voting system a little further. For one thing, what's the point of having ordinary members of the public (ie. potential political voters) on the national juries when the public can vote by televote anyway?

My prediction for Eurovision final (Saturday)

I fared reasonably well with my top three prediction last year (I got the top two right, and my tip for third came sixth) so I'm going to be a bit more ambitious this time round and attempt the top five. Almost certainly a recipe for disaster, for as much as there's a red-hot favourite this year, the lower placings are very difficult to predict. For a long time I'd been feeling confident that, with both an extremely favourable draw and the Andrew Lloyd-Webber factor, the UK were set fair for a top five placing, but I'm now starting to get cold feet about that after the reports from today's rehearsals. Inexplicably, the juries vote after the final rehearsal, meaning that 50% of the vote is settled on the basis of something the audience don't actually get to see (can't be justified, surely?), so a less-than-perfect performance today may well have dented Jade's chances significantly. So, with that in mind, here's my wild stab in the dark...

Winners - Norway
2nd - Greece
3rd - Bosnia-Herzegovina
4th - Iceland
5th - Portugal

Possible dark horses - UK, Malta

I know I said last night that I thought we were heading back to Athens, and I'd stand by that if only Greece hadn't received such a significantly worse draw than Norway. I still personally don't fully understand the appeal of the Norwegian song, but there are times when a consensus of opinion is so strong you just can't ignore it.

I still can't make up my mind who I'll be voting for myself - with my personal rule of always voting for an entry entirely sung in a language other than English, it'll be either Portugal or Estonia, but on the basis of the semi-final performances they're quite evenly-matched for me. But my heart will be with the superb Icelandic entry all the way.

Of course, the fascination of tomorrow night will be to see how the new voting system works in practice. I suspect that although the political voting patterns will be somewhat diluted, they'll still be very noticeable. Let's not forget that Greece and Cyprus used to regularly swap 12 points even in the days when the voting was 100% jury.

I can spot an anti-UK agenda when I see one

If ever I worried my cynicism about Keith Mills of All Kinds of Everything fame went a little too far, he's yet again set my mind at rest that it doesn't with his latest unfunny diatribe about a UK Eurovision entry. Anyone who has read the political posts on this blog will instantly understand why I'm ideally qualified to spot an anti-UK agenda when I see one (ie. I've got one myself), and Keith ticks all the boxes. I did actually make that point to him last year, and he responded that it was complete nonsense, citing his support for the 2005 UK entry (Touch My Fire by Javine) as proof. I do recall that, but I have to say I'm not convinced. The impression I get is that if the UK comes up with an excellent entry that happens to be to his own taste, he's swept along with his enthusiasm for it (as I think all Eurovision fans are with a good song regardless of country). But in every other circumstance, he reverts to his comfortable default position which is that the UK song is unremittingly awful, the weakest in years, no-one in Ireland will vote for it, a contender for last place, etc, etc. These prejudiced 'blind spots' in his annual analysis are such a pity, because in many other ways Keith has the best coverage of the contest on the internet. Fortunately, his regular co-bloggers Andrew and Peter are free of Keith's agenda and both see the UK as a potential winner. For me, not quite - but definite top five.

The only freedom I'll ever understand

After my recent post on gun control, Kevin Baker of the blog The Smallest Minority left a comment inviting me to take part in a debate with him on the issue across our two blogs. I was reluctant to accept for two reasons – firstly, I'd only just taken part in a full-scale debate on the matter and it was difficult to see the purpose of instantly embarking on a second one which would probably cover much the same ground. Secondly, having visited Kevin's blog it became clear that the honeyed words in his comment here about the value of such a debate and my contribution to it were somewhat at odds with the rather more caustic assessment of me he had made over on his own patch –

"Not only more free that he's ever imagined, more free than he can ever possibly understand."

It's hard to fathom how someone he regards as being so intellectually challenged in this way could also simultaneously be regarded as someone worthy of entering into intelligent debate with. A suspicious person might almost think I was being looked upon rather more as a willing patsy. He also made a suggestive remark about the conclusions he might draw if I declined this entirely out-of-the-blue invitation from a website which, after all, I'd never even heard of before – "I've invited 'Scotgo,' Mr. James Kelly, to debate the topic of gun control. I hope he is more willing than the last half-dozen invitees." I trust, on reflection, that Kevin as a fair-minded man would accept that there are in fact a million and one perfectly good reasons why someone might be unable or unwilling to accept an unsolicited invitation to do something that at the very least would be extremely time-consuming?

With these severe reservations in mind, I didn't make any commitment about entering into an ongoing debate, but I did offer to write at least one article drawing my thoughts together on the gun control issue, and allowing people to take issue with me if they so wished. So here it is.

Imagine that you are a child being brought up in a very isolated place, your home miles away from any other settlement. The only people you ever see are your parents, who school you at home, and warn you that if by any chance a stranger should come to the door, you should keep a discreet distance from them and avoid making physical contact. Just to be on the safe side, you should also wash yourself thoroughly after any such encounter. They explain the reason – strangers carry germs, and can make you ill. Sometimes very seriously ill, sometimes you can die. Just to drive this important lesson home, they show you photographic evidence of people suffering from TB and other easily communicable diseases. There can be little doubt – these poor people are suffering terribly, and all because they had done something that was so easily avoided. They had just got too physically close to strangers. But if you make sure you don't do that you can keep yourself safe.

So having learnt and understood this valuable lesson, you have no difficulty accepting and valuing your life as it is. The limitations don’t seem that great – after all, with modern technology you can make friends on the internet, and interact with them almost as if they’re in the same room. You realise how minor these compromises are when weighed against the awful alternative you had seen in those photographs.

But as you interact with more and more people and find out more about the world around you, a strange realisation hits you. Other people simply aren't making the same compromise, or taking the same precautions. They're not in a remote room communicating with others remotely, they're out and about in crowded places brushing against people, shaking their hands, sitting next to them for long periods on long-haul flights, sometimes even kissing and hugging them, etc, etc. Are these people completely nuts? Don't they know about the germs and the diseases, haven't they seen the photographs? Don't they realise their behaviour is leaving them totally exposed to this danger? Well, yes they do. And yet they carry on doing it, seemingly without a care in the world. To you, whose way of life had always been defined by the need to protect yourself at all costs against these risks it seems utterly inexplicable.

This (admittedly colourful and extreme) example seems to me roughly analogous to Rachel Lucas' bafflement in encountering a society where it's not simply the case that ordinary citizens are legally thwarted from owning guns for self-defence purposes – for the most part they simply have no wish to do so. After all, she comes from a society where it's taken as a given that people will be constantly aware of potential threats against them and will want to directly protect themselves against those threats, in many cases by owning and even carrying a gun. But upon arrival in Britain, she cites examples where innocent people have been attacked and have been unable to adequately defend themselves. Isn't it obvious, she asks, that these individuals would have been more likely to survive if they'd had a gun handy? On the face of it, the answer can only be yes. So haven't other people in the society around them heard about these attacks, haven't they read the newspapers, haven't they seen the photographs? Yes they have. So don't they want to possess a gun to lessen the risk of the same fate befalling them? On the whole, no they don't. Utterly inexplicable.

But of course, the reason why people in Britain don't want to carry guns even though there are hypothetical situations in which they might 'need' them is exactly the same as why people get physically close to others even though they might pick up deadly germs. It's not that they're fools or that they haven't spotted the risks – it's just that they choose not to allow their way of life to be defined by those particular risks. I was mercilessly mocked the other day for suggesting the cornerstone of true personal liberty is the freedom from fear. This was a childish fantasy I urgently needed to grow out of, I was told – freedom from fear is a literal impossibility, because it is a simple law of nature that we are all at constant risk. But this is to completely misconstrue the point I was making. Women who walk the streets without the gun in their handbag that they might 'need' to defend themselves against a potential assailant, or just anyone who shakes hands even though there's a small chance it might make them ill...all these people in a small way have achieved that freedom from fear I was talking about. Not because the risk, the source of the fear isn’t there any more, but because they’ve recognised as rational people that it's an acceptably small risk and that their lives therefore don’t need to be defined by that fear. Isn't there freedom in not feeling you need to be practically chained to a gun, in the same way there's freedom in not feeling compelled to avoid shaking hands with others?

Ultimately life is chock full of eminently avoidable risks – but for the most part those risks are small and the available protective strategies are extreme. A woman can significantly lessen the risk of being raped if she never allows herself to be alone with a man – similarly a man can lessen the risk of a devastating false rape allegation by never allowing himself to be alone with a woman. You can avoid drowning by never going near the sea. You can ensure you survive a sudden nuclear war by living in a bunker. Few people would think these steps were worth it, even though they are all perfectly effective, practical strategies to deploy against genuine risks. Why not? Because the sacrifice is too great, the richness of potential life experience missed out on too worthwhile. So instead we all at times make ourselves vulnerable when we don't have to – that's the only way we can truly live. The more we feel able to do this the richer life is, and the more free we are. That's what I mean by freedom from fear.

But of course for this to work people need to know that the risks we're talking about genuinely are acceptably small. It's not rational to feel 'free from fear' to walk in the woods if in reality there's a 90% chance you're going to be eaten by a wild animal. But this is where gun-owners whose way of life – admittedly only to a degree – is defined by their fears have got themselves and the society around them into a terrible bind. Because the actions they are taking to alleviate that fear are in fact increasing the level of risk from one that would otherwise be acceptably small to one which is perhaps not. Think about those unfortunate individuals in Britain who Rachel Lucas observed would have been safer with a gun – if it was possible to look at those situations as entirely self-contained, she might be right. But the inevitable implication is that if those particular individual citizens have a gun, so do millions of others. The UK would have transformed itself from a largely non-weaponised society with what is still a much, much lower level of gun violence than the US to a highly weaponised society with...well, I don't think it's really too big an assumption to suggest our level of gun violence would be bound to increase dramatically. And with the greater risk to individuals' safety comes – ironically – the greatest curtailment of personal freedom, one which the 'right' to carry guns is a very poor substitute for. If guns became so suddenly ubiquitous, isn’t there an inexorable logic to every household needing to have one to protect itself from those other 'defensive' weapons that are suddenly absolutely everywhere? What about my timid elderly aunt who lives alone and would probably faint at the thought of having to learn how to handle a gun – is she going to be told she simply has to get into the 'real world' in the same routine way she's currently told she needs to make sure her locks are secure? Won't she be terrified by the sudden cold message that her personal safety is no longer measured by the efforts of the community around her to collectively be secure but instead by her own (perhaps very limited) proficiency with a gun? Where's the freedom in that?

So there we are. I haven’t even covered a fraction of the areas I was planning to, but that'll do for now. I’m not promising there'll be a follow-up article (or a response to any 'verbose rebuttal'), I'll just see how I feel. In any case, I'm sure I've come up with enough serf-like compelled helplessness in the preceding few paragraphs to allow the fun and the relentless mockery to get well and truly underway. And that's what it's all about at the end of the day, isn't it lads? Enjoy!

UPDATE (Friday, 1am) : Kevin (perhaps wisely) suggested to me yesterday that I shouldn't respond directly to points made in the comments section. I've found, however, over the last few hours that I haven't been able to resist the temptation. And after seven solid, rather mentally exhausting days of participating in exchanges on this topic, I now feel definitively it's time to stop. I'm an occasional blogger, largely on the subject of Scottish politics (and to Montague Burton's annoyance sometimes the Eurovision Song Contest as well) so in contrast to Kevin and others it's very difficult for me to envisage maintaining an indefinite dialogue on this one particular issue. I'll be interested to read Kevin's rebuttal, and although I won't be entirely surprised if it makes my blood boil in some way (or even in a whole multitude of ways), I don't plan to respond to it. Thankyou to everyone who has left comments and feel free to continue doing so (although please note automatic moderation will kick in after a week).

No wonder Jade thought she'd be singing for 'England'

Alwyn ap Huw has a piece lamenting Mark's failure to win Your Country Needs You, and wishing that S4C was able to put him forward as a separate Welsh entry. Naturally, I agree wholeheartedly (on the latter point, I mean!). But at least Wales can say they've had the likes of Jessica Garlick and James Fox compete under the UK flag over the last few years.

But Scotland? Our last Eurovision entrant was the legendarily luckless Scott Fitzgerald (runner-up to Celine Dion by one point) way back in 1988. Even more strikingly, as far as I can see since 1997 just one Scottish act has even got as far as competing in the UK national selection - City Chix in 2006. With Scotland having a full 9% of the population, that can't be put down to mere chance. Don't want to cry discrimination, but sometimes statistics speak for themselves...

Struck Dumb with Amazement part II

So Keith Mills doesn't like the UK's song either! Astonishing. Mind you, I very nearly predicted as much on this blog last night, but then I thought...nah, who'll believe me?

You know it's Eurovision season when...

It's still only January (well, just about) and he's at it already! Keith Mills has commenced his annual bout of UK-bashing over at his All Kinds of Everything blog. I'm sure his regular readership will be struck dumb in amazement as he declares - "Being honest I don't see any of the three acts left in contention setting the Eurovision stage alight and Lloyd-Webber obviously has his doubts as well."

Of course Keith is entitled to his own opinions (however tediously predictable those opinions are), but it's the blatant distortion of plain facts that always irritates me with our Mr Mills. Just a slight misrepresentation of the statement from Andrew Lloyd-Webber that I posted about last night, surely? He "had his doubts" about ONE of the three acts, but expressly NOT about the other two. I think Keith must have skipped his "close reading" classes at school.

Don't double-up Swiss-style

So it's now less than forty-eight hours until the UK's Eurovision entry My Time will be unveiled. One potentially ominous piece of information is that Andrew Lloyd-Webber has revealed he conceived it as a song that could work either as a ballad or a dance track. For me, that immediately brought to mind Paolo Meneguzzi's Swiss entry Era Stupendo from last year. Hardly the happiest precedent...

Eurovision déjà vu

I don't want to puncture anyone's enthusiasm for the UK's selection process for Eurovision this year, but long-term followers of the contest will surely back me up on one point - haven't some of the phrases we've heard from Graham Norton, Andrew Lloyd-Webber and the contestants sounded startlingly familiar? Like "with people of this calibre on board, it's just got more credibility this time". I think I remember Gina G using a variant of that line in 1996! In rather the same way, just about every actress to play a Bond girl in the last twenty-five years has at some point uttered the words - "ah, but she's not your normal sort of Bond girl, she's a real match for him".

Another one is "let everyone know we're taking it seriously this year". Michael Ball in 1992, anyone? In fact, we've heard that line every single time (and it's happened quite a few times) the selection process has been given some sort of makeover. Most recent was the introduction of the Making Your Mind Up format in 2004, leading to the bold selection of (ahem) James Fox. Which brings me on to to another moment from the most recent show on Saturday that really made me wince. It was Norton and Lloyd-Webber groaning their way through Albania's entry and then declaring that if Lloyd-Webber couldn't beat such rubbish, he might as well retire. But unfortunately I seem to remember an 'expert panel' saying much the same thing in the wake of James Fox's selection - they reviewed a handful of other countries' entries and smugly asserted they could already say we'd beaten those. Imprudent words as it turned out, and Lloyd-Webber may similarly live to regret being quite so quick to write off Albania. Of all the Eurovision countries, they seem to have had a particular knack in recent years for getting the best out of what initially sounds like quite a ropey song.

Eurovision season upon us again

Yep, the title says it all, so I suppose it's high time I updated this most utterly ridiculous of all blogs! And of course, I could hardly fail to be excited by the prospect of Andrew Lloyd-Webber and Diane Warren composing the UK entry. The only downside is the casting-show format, which means the chances are that we'll end up with a terrific song (hope I'm not speaking too soon) but yet another inexperienced artist. Admittedly, if the BBC had opted for an experienced singer it would have amounted to a classic French-style internal selection, and thus sacrificed the unprecedented positive publicity the Eurovision Song Contest is currently receiving in the UK.

And of course, the other saving grace is that there just happens to be one singer in the selection who is up to the standard (and then some) of a seasoned performer - the truly extraordinary Jade. But will the 'Great British Public' (aye, right) have the eminent good sense to pick her? After she finished in the danger zone on Saturday, I must say I have no confidence whatsoever. Even before that, I had my doubts - a primarily female voting audience (which seems to be standard for talent/reality shows) will always tend to go for the 'phwoar' option (Mark) or the 'cutesy fairy-tale' option (the twins).

But what do you think? Does the obvious strongest contender still have a chance of booking her rightful place in Moscow? Pointless question, I know, because no-one ever comments on this blog except to point out that Vânia Fernandes is not very pretty. (Evidently there are those who would disagree!)

Solutions to the Eurovision political voting problem

I went out of my way to defend Terry Wogan on the All Kinds of Everything blog yesterday (I know, I've got an unhealthy fixation with that place), so it was a bit disappointing to hear him make such fatalistic remarks about the future of the Eurovision Song Contest in his commentary tonight. If he's ready to call it a day, that's his prerogative, but the idea that the entirety of western Europe is going to join him in doing so is a bit melodramatic. I wouldn't deny for a moment there's a serious problem with political voting, but the irony is that this is the year a significant first step was made towards addressing that issue. The new rules that applied at the semi-final stage successfully produced a fair balance between western and eastern qualifiers for the first time in years, so now all that's needed is a similar innovation to sort out the problem in the final. Off the top of my head, I can think of four possibilities that would provide at least a partial solution.

1) Allow each country to award points to fifteen different entries, instead of the current ten. This wouldn't have been feasible in the past, but now that only the top marks are read out, it would no longer slow proceedings down at all. Of course, under this system the top points would still be awarded on a neighbourly basis, but it's reasonable to assume the lower set of points would be distributed more on merit, leading to a fairer overall outcome. An example to illustrate - if a country happened to finish twelfth out of twenty-five in every single televote, under the current system it would finish last with no points at all. That simply can't be considered a fair reflection of the result people are actually voting for.

2) Allow each country to award points to five eastern countries, and five western countries. This would have the advantage of still allowing viewers to decide the result, and still to vote for whichever country they like - indeed it would be a strong incentive to cast two votes - but it would also, at a stroke, neutralise the in-built advantage eastern countries currently enjoy.

3) The BBC could surrender its 'Big Four' status in exchange for something more worthwhile - separate representation in the contest for Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland. It would be the right thing to do on its own merits, but it would also produce a new British Isles voting bloc that could balance out its counterparts in the Balkans, the Baltic, Scandinavia, and the ex-Soviet Union. And if anyone tells you Scotland would never award high marks to England, I can tell you for certain they're wrong. Apart from anything else, about 8% of the population is English-born.

4) Revert to a 50/50 weighting for the jury and televote. Probably the simplest solution, in that it's been done before, at least in some countries.

On the contest itself, I was a bit disappointed to see Russia run away with it - as I said before Serbia, Portugal and Albania were my favourites, but I would still have been much happier to see Greece, Ukraine or Armenia take the crown than Russia. Ah well, it's all a matter of personal taste at the end of the day. At least I had the satisfaction of seeing my prediction turn out to be close to the money, although it wasn't exactly a tough one to call this year! And at least the song that was 'clearly the worst in the whole contest' (© Keith Mills 2008) somehow managed to finish 5th out of 43 entries. Wonder how it managed that?

Prediction for Eurovision final (Saturday)

There's an episode of the 1980s sitcom Just Good Friends where Jan Francis' character repeatedly tells Paul Nicholas there's "something missing" in their relationship without specifying what, which eventually results in an exasperated Nicholas screaming "WHAT IS THIS THING?". I felt a bit like that today when trying to make sense of the reports of Jelena Tomašević's performance in the final round of rehearsals. The most frequent comment was that she was in good voice, but that there was "something" missing. WHAT IS THIS THING?

Even leaving aside this missing thing that everyone seems utterly incapable of articulating (maybe Andy Abraham's nightmare vision has already come to pass), I was always a bit sceptical that Serbia could quite pull it off. In my view, it's definitely the class song of the field, but then I thought the same about Serbia & Montenegro in 2004 (they came second) and Bosnia-Herzegovina in 2006 (they came third). So my prediction for Serbia is top three, but without any embarrassing need for Zeljko Joksimovic to present the trophy to himself. ("Great song, Zelkjo." "Thanks, Zeljko, you did a great job presenting too. And I love what you've done with your hair.")

But if not Serbia, then who? The bookies seem to agree (although they've been spectacularly wrong before) that the only other countries in serious contention are Russia, Ukraine, Greece, Sweden, and possibly Armenia. Personally, I just can't see Sweden winning - Hero is slightly higher quality than their usual fare, but it's still sticking to the same basic formula that frequently delivers them fifth or sixth place but no higher. I think Greece and Armenia will similarly come up short, so that leaves a battle between Ukraine and Russia. If that's the case, I feel Russia might just sneak it, if only because it cunningly draws the ice skating and violin-loving demographic into the pool of potential televoters (I'm being flippant).

So my prediction is :

Winners - Russia
2nd - Ukraine
3rd - Serbia

Potential dark horses :

Portugal
Norway (aka 'clearly the worst song in the contest', © Keith Mills 2008)

Mr Mills' musings also lead me to have an even greater interest in the fate of the UK this year. He confidently stated at a ridiculously early stage (when many songs had yet to even be selected) that Andy Abraham was 'certain' to finish in the bottom five, and was highly likely to finish last. I responded that I felt he could achieve the UK's best result since Jessica Garlick, which would mean a top fifteen placing. Unfortunately, I made that prediction before the UK received its lousy place in the draw, so I'm less confident than I was, but to be honest I'd settle for top twenty - since that would be sufficient to show up Mr Mills' "certainty" for the closed-minded nonsense it always was. Here's hoping.

My issues with this year's Eurovision contestants - no. 8

Andy Abraham of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
(just in case anyone thinks he's representing 'England')

"Even if the world stops loving
I could never stop loving you
Even if the sun stops rising
I still wanna wake up with you
Even if all words lost their meaning
You would understand I love you"

I'm not sure Andy fully appreciates the sheer horror of the picture he's painting here. For starters, many would argue that our facility for language is the one and only thing that separates us from the animals, but it seems not for much longer if 'words have lost all meaning'. Furthermore, if the sun really did stop rising, crops would fail, and we'd have a major famine in store. Which all begs the question - who exactly is this poor woman that Andy is waking up beside, and what God-awful state will she be in as she meets his 'loving' gaze? Let's face it, she'll certainly be in dire need of a square meal, and at a more basic level, given that it'll be pitch dark will she even be sure that she's woken up in the first place? Let's also not forget that she'll be going through the unimaginable emotional anguish of knowing that her dearest friends and family have utterly forsaken her, since they have, along with the rest of the entire human race (save our Andy) lost their capacity for love.

But fear not, because in spite of these rather serious misfortunes, and in spite of the fact that she'll be in the arms of a man spouting complete gibberish (words have lost all meaning, remember), she'll just somehow know what he feels for her in his sweet little heart. So that'll completely make up for global calamity, then. There's always a silver lining.

Por-tu-gal!

Do you know, I actually found myself punching the air when Portugal were named as the final qualifier. I had to remind myself I've never even been to Portugal, but it was my second-favourite song of the night, and I would have been heartbroken if it hadn't made it through. When there was only one spot in the final remaining, I honestly believed it was going to Malta.

And as for my favourite Albania - well I'm obviously rubbish at predictions, but on the plus side there is some justice in this world after all! My dream result for Saturday would now be a Serbian victory, with Portugal and Albania also in the top ten. And a top fifteen finish for Andy Abraham and the UK, if only for the pleasure of watching the sainted Keith Mills being forced to eat his words - again.

I don't want to blow my own trumpet, but...

Since Keith Mills is, with his customary humility, busily awarding himself a royal pat on the back for correctly predicting all ten qualifiers tonight, I may as well point out that I achieved the same feat. Actually, I think my own accuracy should count for more, if only because at no point in the last two months have I ever made the (now demonstrably bizarre) claim that Norway is "clearly the worst song in the contest"! Keith really can't be let off the hook about that, because while Maria's performance has undoubtedly become more polished over the course of the rehearsals, at the end of the day it's still exactly the same 'appalling' song she started out with. As Keith has noted himself in previous years "you can't make a silk purse from a sow's ear", so I think that stands as pretty conclusive proof that Norway never had a sow's ear to begin with. Face it, Keith, your radar was way off, however much you've tried to row back in recent days - and I've noticed a few signs of you trying to do the same with Andy Abraham. Now there's a "slight chance" that he won't finish last, apparently. Such generosity. Doubtless if he finishes in the top ten, Keith will somehow trumpet that as yet another "correct prediction".

OK, rant over. For now.