However, that's not really why I'm ranting tonight.
I find myself disappointed that the UK achieved such sad and pathetic place. We succeeded in coming last again. While this year wasn't the debacle of the truly horrible year (2003, and a performance so completely out of tune it was hard to be totally sympathetic) in which we succeeded in scoring the dreaded "Null Points!", I'm afraid 10 points is hardly a great showing. I think it was 10 points, anyway. We were overtaken at the last minute by Ireland and Belarus, both of whom started even slower than we did, but enjoyed a belated surge of minor votes.
I will say, to the credit of many of the countries, there was substantially less political voting than has been oh-so-evident in recent years. It was nice to be trying to guess to whom certain Eastern European countries would give their 12 points, only to find myself confounded as they voted for a good song rather than their "Good Neighbours" as has happened so often in the past. This apparent lack of politics served to show up the countries who DID vote in this way.
But, again, I'm not really getting to the point. This year, and indeed every year for a few years now, the UK organisers have said "This year we're serious! We're not going for a jokey song this time. We actually want to WIN!!"
So what do they do? Do they choose an established singer who may be able to perform a well written song, possibly mostly in tune? After all, even Israel, with their singer's voice meandering through the scales in a way I'm convinced hadn't occurred to the writers of the song, achieved more points than us. No they don't. We choose a boy who had apparently 20 minutes to practice the song before he first sang it on stage about a month ago. A lad with, as far as I could work out, no actual singing success to his name yet. Do they then, choose a song written by a writer/team with proven success? Well, yes we did that but, hang on, is that the phone - Hello! It's the 80's, and they'd like their song back please. Sure, Stock, Aitken and Waterman have achieved monster success - but not so much since the 90's.
Actually, I thought the song wasn't horrible - in fact, there were many songs substantially worse than ours, but somehow we didn't manage to get it right. Is this because the boy had so little experience? You know, given the success of recent artistes on the show, I've started to wonder if there isn't really a rule which states "You can only enter the Eurovision Song Contest if you've only just been discovered and have never had any kind of recording success in the past." I know that sounds daft, but I've been convinced that there really is a rule just like that, because, to my knowledge (and remember, it's late, and my memory's not so good) we've never submitted a song by an established artiste.
The eventual winner was a lady who's song is already a number 1 hit in more than one country.
Edit: Time to add some real information. The last time the UK won the Eurovision was back in 1997 when Katrina and the Waves performed. It's perhaps ironic to note that Katrina and the Waves formed in the early 1980's, and had had some not inconsiderable success, internationally as well as in the UK. Lena from Germany, while still young, has also had amazing success! I was surprised to find that there even IS a Wikipedia page for Josh Dubovie, who's career to date seems to consist of rejection letters from such illustrious shows as The X Factor, and Britain's Got Talent.
In fact, remembering some of the commentaries from The Lovely Terry Wogan, I seem to remember that quite a few of the bands/performers on the show have been huge celebrities in their own countries. While I'm fairly sure this was a point of ridicule for our esteemed presenter, I really don't think it's a point that can be ignored.
In fact, a little search round the interwebz reveals the sad truth. The only UK band to have been formed specifically to sing in Eurovision and win were Bucks Fizz. Now, this kind of luck has undeniably happened - Bucks Fizz beat an already established band (and another made-for-Eurovision group) to be allowed to take their song into the contest. Hardly luck, really. Some of the band were already singers in their own rights (indeed, Sheryl Baker had already been to Eurovision once with another band 4 years earlier), and they were all recruited by audition.
The first time a song from the UK slipped below single figures in the final rankings was back in 1978 - a totally forgettable song called Bad Old Days. Really, don't follow the link! After that, though, there was only one occasion (1987) when the UK slipped out of the top 10 until 1999. And do you know, the British public is so self-effacing that this is, in fact, good enough for us.
I remember hearing, while watching "Eurovision: Your Country Needs You" earlier this year (what, maybe 6 weeks ago, max) that Pete Waterman thought the Boy/Girl band (and I really am sorry, I don't remember their names, or which SAW song they sang) didn't seem to sing well together, and a comment from someone else that they'd had only a few weeks to practice together. Every single "artiste" who sang that night was a total noob!
It strikes me that while the "OK year 3, who wants to sing a solo in the summer concert?" approach may be workable for my children's school, it's hardly the best way to ensure a reasonable showing in the Eurovision Song Contest!