I was made to believe one of the reasons the UK and Germany haven't done well in the past (with exceptions, and Germany won it in 2010) is because we (along with a couple of other countries I can't recall right now), buy their/our way to the final by contributing to the expensive running costs, which could create a negative perception among other countries. It may also have an impact on song quality, as less scrutiny over the years encourages less effort to go into songs/artists.
The detailed scoreboard can be seen at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurovision_Song_Contest_2022#Scoreboard
And to say that Ukraine's win was solely political is really unfair. Their song was one of my (next to France's, whoops on that one) and many other people's favourites even before the invasion. If they had sent a worse song and were then invaded, I don't think they would have won
Maybe the friendly relations between Serbia and Russia and parallels with the NATO bombing of Serbia?One interesting pattern I can see there, only 5 nations gave Britain 0 points in the public vote, all 5 are former Yugoslav republics.
Maybe the friendly relations between Serbia and Russia and parallels with the NATO bombing of Serbia?
Serbs aren't confined to Serbia there are a lot of them across the former Yugoslavia.That wouldn't explain it though because many of the former Yugoslav Republics aren't best of friends with Serbia either.
Maybe a question of regional tastes ?
That wouldn't explain it though because many of the former Yugoslav Republics aren't best of friends with Serbia either.
Maybe a question of regional tastes ?
I voted for Moldova!Is there anyone on the forum who will own up to actually voting in the competition?
Yes that is probably a main reason.One of the main reasons we did well was nothing to do with our support for Ukraine but most likely due to TikTok. That’s where our act started - he has 12.9M followers and 105.4M likes.
The BBC is in talks with the European Broadcasting Union "to potentially host the 2023 Eurovision Song Contest" in the UK.
The show's organisers have concluded, after a "full assessment and feasibility study", that next year's event cannot be held in the winning country, Ukraine.
This is because of the ongoing war in Ukraine, following Russia's invasion.
Sam Ryder came second for the UK, the country's best result since 1998.
Ryder topped the jury vote in Turin in May, but rap-folk band Kalush Orchestra, who were given special permission to leave the war-torn country to compete, soared to first place with 631 points in a symbolic show of public support.
Traditionally, the winning country is asked to host the following year's contest.
'Ukraine win will be reflected'The EBU said in a statement it had conducted the study with Ukrainian state broadcaster UA:PBC and external specialists, amid the conflict, but that the "security and operational guarantees" required to host the event cannot be fulfilled in the war-torn country.
The organisation thanked the winning nation's broadcaster for its "wholehearted cooperation and commitment in exploring all scenarios" and said it shared in "their sadness and disappointment", adding it would continue to support them.
"As a result of this decision, in accordance with the rules and to ensure the continuity of the event, the EBU will now begin discussions with the BBC, as this year's runner-up, to potentially host the 2023 Eurovision Song Contest in the United Kingdom," the statement read.
"It is our full intention that Ukraine's win will be reflected in next year's shows. This will be a priority for us in our discussions with the eventual hosts."
A BBC spokesman added: "We have seen the announcement from the EBU. Clearly these aren't a set of circumstances that anyone would want. Following their decision, we will of course discuss the BBC hosting the Eurovision Song Contest."
Downing Street welcomed the possibility of the UK hosting Eurovision if Ukraine cannot, pledging to ensure it would "overwhelmingly reflects Ukraine's rich culture, heritage and creativity".
"Ukraine's victory... was richly deserved and as the rightful winner the government's firm wish has been to see next year's contest hosted there," said a government spokesperson.
"If the EBU decides the competition can't go ahead in Ukraine, we would of course welcome the opportunity to work closely with Ukraine and the BBC to host it here in the UK."
They added the government was also committed to "building on the ongoing partnership between our two countries".
Ukraine winners' pleaAsked if the government would help the BBC with the costs, the spokesman said "we're slightly getting ahead of ourselves in terms of the process".
Kalush Orchestra ended their performance in Turin last month with a plea: "Please help Ukraine, help Mariupol, help Azovstal right now."
They went on to sell their trophy for $900,000 (£712,000; €838,000) to raise money for the war effort.
Russia's invasion of Ukraine prompted Eurovision organisers to ban them from competing.
Said venue has a gap in its calendar for the time period required too…I've just heard that on the news.
Apparently Nicola Sturgeon has tweeted that she knows of a venue on the banks of the Clyde that would be suitable .... !!
Ho, hum ... nothing to see here, move on!
The Eurovision Song Contest will take place in the UK next year, it has been confirmed.
The show's organisers decided the event could not be held in the winning country, Ukraine, due to the ongoing war following Russia's invasion.
The UK came second in this year's contest, so the European Broadcasting Union (EBU) opened talks with the BBC.
It's not yet known which city will host, but cities including Glasgow and Manchester have expressed an interest.
The UK has a number of places with suitable arenas, accommodation and international transport links.
Leeds, Liverpool, Newcastle, Birmingham, Aberdeen, London, Brighton, Belfast and Cardiff could also be in the running.
Cities will have to prove they have the right facilities and go through a bidding process.