Let's now take a snapshot of how the various nations did over the course of the 2000s. For the sake of comparison, the top ten places in the final official standings for each contest are assigned 12-10-8 style points. In the case of a tie for place, the nation that received the highest individual score from a single jury takes the place, and if no resolution is forthcoming from this method then the benefit goes to that nation which our own jury scored the higher. Any ties in the final tally are broken by average performance, and where that is the same they are broken by highest annual placing.

Alongside the '00s snapshot, we'll also take a look at the running total since 1957. Change since the '90s tally is given in brackets.

Revolution in Europe has led to a revolution in the decade chart: the top for both ourselves and Europe is a mass of risers and the odd new entry. The highest new entry for both of us is the Ukraine (we gave them four top-three placings, and they only missed points from us in 2005 when they were coasting after their victory in 2004), and we're both impressed with Latvia and Armenia, although we disagree somewhat on the values of Serbia (Serbia & Montenegro is incorporated in the Serbian score; adding the Serbian score to the Yugoslavian does not alter our overall chart). In real life, Russia has clearly had a very good decade, taking the top place in the European 2000s chart. They perform far less excitingly in our tally, though by no means badly. There's perhaps a little more to their Eurovision success than merely their gas provision and military might.

Much has been said about the power of the Eastern European block vote. Let's examine this notion. We'll start by arranging the nations into four arbitrary regional groups: Scandinavia (including Iceland and Finland), the Mediterranean (that collection of Mediterranean nations joining since the 1970s, principally Greece, Turkey, Cyprus and Israel), Western Europe (pretty much everything from Portugal and Ireland across to Austria) and the East (everything else, from the former Yugoslavia, across the Eastern Bloc and into Asia). A statistical analysis of the points hauls from the last decade shows the following: We gave Western Europe an average of about 4 points per nation more than the actual juries of Europe, while they gave 2pts more to the Scandinavian nations. There was little to choose between our Mediterranean scoring (about 25pts each). For the East, we gave about 12pts per nation over the decade, to Europe's 13pts per nation (an insignificant variation). Assuming our tastes to be the true mark of quality (which clearly they are), it can be seen that the perceived Eastern bias is actually a fair representation of the musical talents of the Eastern Bloc. Our difference of opinion is not on the Eastern question but on the merits of Western Europe against Scandinavia. It is to the North, and not to the East, that the Western nations have been losing votes.

If one should dare to disagree with the (admittedly somewhat Easterly-pitched) tastes of the AView jury one may well like to point out that an Eastern bias is almost inevitable when you consider that the two Easterly groups comprise ten more nations than the Westerly (25 to 15). The very fact that there are more Eastern nations voting than there are Western means that the East has a greater say in the outcome of the contest. It is indisputable that certain styles of music have particular territories of popularity; not merely on an ethnic level (although that naturally plays its role). A shared culture implies shared tastes. Let us not forget the massive success of the Alpine block in the early years of the competition, for very much the same reason that Eastern Europe is having success at the moment: a tight mass of nations with a necessarily intertwined heritage.

But enough of that sort of thing. Let's cast our eyes to the overall leaderboards. There's been really very little change in the official standings, mainly because there's been very little scored by the established nations. Austria in 16th place marks something of a breakwater where no traffic has crossed in the last ten years. Everything above has stayed above, and everything below likewise. A similar breakwater exists in our own chart in the form of 20th place Monaco. Our placings have been a bit more fluid than Europe's, although the top is equally concrete. Spain have now begun to pull away from Germany (though Germany would be closer were we to include the 1956 result). In the real world, the UK's fifteen second-places give them a comfortable, near-unassailable lead, over 70 points ahead of rivals France and nearly 100 points more than Spain have in the lead of our own chart.

Applying the same regional groups as we did in our analysis of voting trends in the 2000s, we see that, overall, Europe have given an average of 22 points per nation more than we have to the countries of Western Europe, but only 1pt more to those of Eastern Europe. We on the other hand have put 29 points per nation more than Europe in the pockets of the Mediterranean nations, and have given the Scandinavian nations 22 points per nation more than they received in real life. As far as individual nations are concerned, Finland have been grossly under-rated by Europe and the UK grossly over-rated. Serbia, Estonia and Ireland have, on average, been even more over-rated than the UK. Portugal and Turkey have been underscored by Europe to the order of about 5pts per entry. Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Iceland, Monaco, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden have come out roughly the same in both our analysis and the European voting.