Force India’s Paul Di Resta was angry at his team as a problem with the car meant he was unable to get put onto the track at the right time in order to deliver a good lap. Jenson Button continued his disappointing performance as he didn’t get on the track soon enough to deliver a flying lap, meaning he had to settle for 14th on the grid. However, in the past this hasn’t stopped him from taking 1st on this track, as he did in 2011 when he climbed up from 7th. However, there was no doubt he would have his work cut out if he wanted to win this race.

Despite all this tension in the pit lane there was one driver who brightened everyone’s day by showing how bad things could get. Felipe Massa proved once again that maybe the F1 car is just a little too powerful for him, as, in scenes reminiscent of his Monaco disaster, he smashed the car into the wall with such incredible force that the scattered debris meant that the red flag was waved with just two minutes left on the clock. Once again there were no surprises that Vettel took 1st place on the grid with Hamilton just behind and Williams Valterri Bottas in third – relatively unfamiliar ground for the young driver.
Vettel took off from the line with a strong start and Hamilton, keen to push Bottas of his turf, was quick to follow and block the Williams driver from advancing his position. After taking this knock Bottas was soon put under pressure from the front runners – pressure he was not used to and which he soon submitted to, allowing the likes of Mark Webber and Fernando Alonso to push him down into 6th.

Despite this he was able to hold sixth place well while under pressure from Toro Rosso’s Jean Eric-Vergne, who eventually pushed past. Force India’s Adrian Sutil attempted to follow suit but, in an attempt to avoid contact from Bottas, Sutil spun the car 360, forcing other cars onto the grass verge, the car was still in good condition and Sutil was able to rejoin the race, albeit down in 13th.
Massa was keen to make up for his disappointing qualifying session and, after coming into the pits to exchange tyres, he emerged in 12th, just behind Sutil who had made up some ground since his spin. However, Massa was eager to take 11th from the Force India driver and he immediately started to pile the pressure on Sutil at each given opportunity – but Sutil blocked him well and the two continued their battle for some time.
Force India’s other driver, Paul Di Resta, had a difficult qualifying session and to counter this the team decided to enforce a one-stop strategy during the Scot’s race. This seemed to work as the drivers ahead of Paul went in to the pit lane to change tyres, Di Resta gained easy places without putting his car in danger by using dangerous manoeuvres to get past his competitors. If this strategy did work it would give Di Resta another good result in the season which could allow him to move up from his mid-pack comfort zone.
A good drive from Di Resta meant his tyres survived the majority of the race and, after the team left it to Paul to decide when he wanted to change, he decided it would be lap 58 of 70, meaning he would only have 11 laps to complete on his new set of super-soft tyres, after emerging in 7th, just ahead of teammate Sutil, who was now relieved of the pressure of Felipe Massa. With a brand new set of tyres Di Resta now had a distinct advantage above the competition in the later stages of the race.
The race concluded with a podium consisting of Vettel in 1st, Alonso 2nd and Hamilton 3rd. Vettel showed the world once again how he can command a F1 car to take the lead on the grid during qualifying and how he can sustain it through each of the Canadian Grand Prix’s 70 laps. Despite Vettel being the driver that he is, it does make many F1 fan’s desire to see somebody else cross the line. Vettel is well on his way to a fourth World Championship title, and it can make the whole sport seem incredibly repetitive. However with drivers like Jenson Button and Mark Webber taking a more passive attitude towards this racing season, it would seem the only drivers capable of threatening Vettel’s chase for the title are Alonso and Hamilton, who both proved they are willing, if not quite able, to tame the raging Red Bull.

However, as boring and predictable as this result was, it does show how unpredictable the sport can be. At the start of the race Vettel claimed 1st with Hamilton in 2nd, but in 3rd was Valterri Bottas and, while he wasn’t able to keep his lead, it does show how the drivers that don’t get the attention of the front runners like Vettel are able to claim a place at the front of the pack. Paul Di Resta also showed how he is capable of showing he can do more than what he has shown after his one-stop strategy allowed him to finish in 7th ahead of the likes of Kimi Raikkonen and Felipe Massa. The next race of the season could have another predictable result of Sebastian Vettel taking the top spot, but what about 2nd and 3rd? Maybe Bottas can make another claim to the throne after another good qualifying session, or maybe another one-stop strategy combined with a place further up the grid will allow Di Resta to tackle to competition for a place on the podium? It is only race 7 of 19 of the 2013 season; maybe Vettel’s lead isn’t as secure as he would hope.

Predictably, these policies have been greeted with derision by the incumbent government. Prime Minister David Cameron accused Miliband of “complete weakness” over welfare, given that in 2010 the Labour leader had criticised the Coalition’s child benefits cuts as being unfair and out of touch with hard-working families. Tory chairman Grant Shapps, meanwhile, described Miliband’s speech as “completely empty”.

Many have interpreted Labour’s recent posturing as a move away from a universal benefits system, which the party has traditionally supported but which it fears will not get it elected in the current economic climate. This leaves Miliband and co open to attack that they have sold out on their traditional ideological values, and provides further fuel to those who claim (legitimately) that there is now little that distinguishes the Labour/Conservative/Lib Dem triumvirate.

The depressing reality, however, is that the welfare system in its current form is unsustainable. We as a nation simply cannot afford to hand out benefits to recipients who are not genuinely in need of them. In the boom years under New Labour there was no pressure on the government to risk leaking political capital by putting an end to universal benefits. By contrast, Miliband has acknowledged the need for a future Labour administration to carefully scrutinise all of its expenditure. Ed Balls, in similar vein, has called for an “iron discipline” on spending.

In this context ending child benefits for households where one person is earning at least £50,000 does not seem deeply unfair. The welfare system was originally envisaged as providing a safety net to the neediest in society – this is where the focus should lie, particularly at a time of acute economic difficulty. Arguably, high-earning households should not receive state support.

It will be surprising to many, meanwhile, to hear a Labour party proposing a welfare cap – this policy has previously been Conservative territory. Miliband omitted in his speech to flesh out what such a cap might entail, merely saying that it would have to be set at a “sensible” level. The Labour Party’s acceptance, at least in principle, of a cap reflects political reality – a majority of the electorate is now cynical towards welfare, and in agreement with Chancellor George Osborne’s reforms.

Perhaps most interesting is Ed Balls’s pledge that Labour would end winter fuel payments to the high-end elderly, as this constitutes something entirely new. The reality is that, despite the fact that pensions make up the majority of welfare spending, the government’s austerity programme to date has omitted to take on wealthy pensioners over perks such as free bus passes, TV licenses and winter fuel payments. The reason for this is simple: the elderly uniformly turn out to vote. Exacerbating the issue are the fact that the over-60s is the only age demographic in which the Conservatives lead Labour, and Cameron’s pre-election pledge to ring-fence pension spending.

The demographical point may explain why Miliband feels more emboldened to end universal winter fuel payments. Unfortunately, however, the money recouped through such a policy would be a drop in the ocean – around £100 million. While Labour’s acceptance that welfare is in need of reform is welcome, there is still a lot of work to do if we are to end up with a system that is sustainable in the long-term, while still providing adequate support to those in society who are truly in need of it.

The wider context here is that a rising population and life expectancy rates are creating a ticking time bomb that will go off in the near future unless addressed, threatening the UK’s standing in the world and the livelihoods of its citizens. Unemployment benefits tend to grab the headlines, but it is pension entitlements that are the real problem. Several decades ago the average working person could expect around ten years of retired life; in modern times many people are getting used to thirty years of state dependency. Although it has not yet been accepted in mainstream political debate, this situation is unsustainable.

Currently the plan is for the state pension age to rise to 67 for both men and women by 2026. Many, though, believe that this is not enough – The Economist has argued for a sharper rise, following which the SPA should be indexed to life expectancy. Given that today’s 65-year-olds are far healthier than their counterparts several decades ago, this does not seem a hugely unfair suggestion. Whatever is decided, and whoever is in power after 2015, it seems clear that welfare is an issue badly in need of being properly addressed. Notwithstanding its traditional support for universal benefits, the Labour Party’s apparent acceptance of this important debate is something to be welcomed. There is, however, still much work to be done if a truly fair and sustainable system is to be implemented.

Alex Rickets

The attack was nothing to do with Islam…

Well, it might not not ‘most people’s’ Islam (or yours), but it is Islam nonetheless. It was said by one of the perpetrators himself: “By Allah, we swear by Almightly Allah, we will never stop fighting you until you leave us alone.” I understand – and support – the need for politicians to calm any simmering tension by denying all connection, but for others to do so is just denialist. Just watch this fascinating/worrying recent documentary of extremist Richard Dart and fellow Islamists, filmed by his stepbrother. There’s a big logical difference between Islam and Muslims. (As religionofpeace.com says: “As a documented ideology, Islam exists independently of anyone’s opinion.”) So critiquing the former and exonerating the vast majority of the latter is a perfectly logical line to tread. And, in principle, it’s not racist. It shouldn’t bear repeating that Islam is not a race.

Muslims shouldn’t even have to apologise

…Which leads on to this suggestion, expressed by a few, including the New Statesman’s George Eaton and, in The Independent, Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, who could probably find racism in a brown paper bag. (The House of Card’s Frank Underwood: “I have often found that bleeding hearts have an ironic fear of their own blood. One drop and they seize up.” Not sure it completely works in this context, but I’ve just watched it and will take any half-decent reason to use it.) Anyway, the suggestion here is that it is not not sufficient society is at the stage where nearly everyone – Muslim or not, and all the mainstream papers – is denouncing this act, absolving the ‘vast majority’ of ‘ordinary’ Muslims from it, and calling for tolerance. No; there is, so the argument goes, some unfair malevolent and slightly racist societal pressure on Muslims to condemn.

This doesn’t hold to scrutiny. Loads of organisations which people choose to belong these days seek to extricate themselves from their (perceived) morally unrepresentative fringe. Just look back a few weeks in the news. A woman getting in trouble with her employer for showing little remorse in knocking a cyclist off his bike (are one’s driving skills that relevant to accountancy?), and the now-infamous “Swivel-eyed loons”-gate. Also, football clubs distancing themselves from hooliganism, which let’s face it they didn’t do. And none of these organisations even profess to have nearly as much ownership of absolute, ultimate moral truth as Islam does. So if someone does something unapproved of morally under the name of Islam, while the presumption should probably be on innocence, it’s perfectly reasonable for Muslims to be expected to extricate themselves from it. Even as an atheist – a position defined by its very absence of belief – I figure that if I want to claim some kind of moral link to things like the Red Cross, Bill Gates, Red Nose Day, the NHS, Christopher Hitchens and Stephen Fry, then it’s only fair I apologise for Stalin too. Both or neither.

The problem of liberalism

And from the left to right – The Daily Mail and Daily Express (The Mail’s demented little brother, trying very hard to ape it but with increasingly little success). I actually broadly agreed with their diagnosis of the problem, but their remedies are far more problematic than their tones suggest. In the Express, Leo McKinstry writes, with a really rather impressive obliviousness to his own hypocrisy: “British officialdom is pathetically fearful about tackling activities among migrants that are inimical to our traditional liberal values.” (Like those oh-so liberal values expressed in the Express?) The reason why authorities are cautious about stamping down on ‘extremism’ (parentheses important here) is precisely because we live in a liberal country, largely willing to belief and practices contrary to societal norms. It is places like Bangladesh, Egypt and Pakistan where transgression cultural norms are far less tolerated. Hardly great bastions of liberalism…

The Daily Mail carried a lot of similar copy, but at least hinted at the logical difficulty in calling for more liberal values…through more censorship and more draconian policing and security measures. It voiced concern about “empowering media regulator Ofcom to dictate who may or not appear on TV”, but seemingly no such reservations about clamping down on extremist material on the internet. If there was such a crackdown, Islamists could protest, reasonably enough, of authorities being undemocratic in not giving them their voice, possibly creating further unrest, if not in the UK elsewhere. (Anjem Choudary, for one, has been to university and been a lawyer, so I wouldn’t put it past his intellect – and slipperiness – to advance a fairly routine philosophical argument such as this).

They were ‘cowards’

This one has been trotted out by several red-top columnists and letter-writers, in (justifiable) rage, including Louise Mensch. But surely being willing to kill, be incarcerated or even be killed is more a sign of bravery than cowardice? Sure, it is more cowardly than going out the Middle East and fighting ‘the West’ themselves, but far braver than, say, posting anonymous internet hate. Moral is a different issue. Michael Adebolajo will be seen as a “hero” to some, just as most Brits (myself included) see WW2 fighters as heroes.

I’m aware of the risk of sounding smug and snidey here. I accept I haven’t got any easy solutions – indeed that is partly my point – so maybe there’s no point in playing devil’s advocate. But the reaction described in this and the last point don’t inspire great confidence in tackling extremism with a particularly cool head.

Discussing foreign policy is sacrosanct

…Voiced by Boris, among many others. If the attack is discussed in terms of Islam, it’s also reasonable to discuss it in terms of foreign policy. After all, the killer mentioned both, and murdered a soldier. Granted, discussing it seems a little close to excusing the killers, but as professor Terry Eagleton brilliantly argues, the reverse may be closer to the truth: “If you deny your enemy any shred of rationality, you come perilously close to excusing him . To be bereft of reason, like a baby or a squirrel, is to be morally innocent. That is why barristers do not usually accuse those they are prosecuting of being dangerous lunatics.”

And finally…

We shouldn’t give these extremists the coverage they deserve

Says someone who has evidently watched/read about it – and is now writing about it. In a national newspaper.

Part of ‘Chorus’, the tweet wall installation, at the end of the exhibition. Credit: Field

As you walk around the exhibition, it’s impossible to ignore the faceless mannequins littering the space, each carrying a different quote about propaganda on their chest. “The mannequins stand for all of us,” says curator Ian Cooke. “They’re a defined audience.” They also appear to be slightly sinister, positioned as though they could be guarding the exhibits and watching visitors whilst trying to blend into the background. Perhaps it shouldn’t be surprising that you feel as though you’re being watched when you’re in an exhibition about state control.

Distribution methods are laid bare in Propaganda: Power and Persuasion, down to the subtlest forms such as postage stamps and coins, where statements about national identity have been integrated into everyday life. It’s clear that leaders and governments aren’t afraid to diversify their tactics, especially in wartime, when patriotic silk scarves from Jacqmar of London allowed even the most stylish woman on the street during World War II to inject a political slant into her outfit. Meanwhile, over in Germany, a maths textbook was drip-feeding Nazi views to schoolchildren with tasks like: ‘How much does it cost to look after the hereditary unfit?’. As if the prospect of an arithmetic lesson wasn’t depressing enough already, the Nazis just had to supplement it with a pro-eugenics argument.

Some of the more blatant tactics, which scream rather than whisper their messages, are just as remarkable. Russia’s propaganda train, which ran during the 1920s, distributed books and leaflets so effectively that it also carried a printing press so that the stream of literature wouldn’t be interrupted. From trains onto planes, the airborne leaflet drops over Europe during World War II, by both Brits and Americans, ensured that civilians and troops in Nazi-controlled countries could pick up news and information about important broadcast timings, showing that the Allies were fighting back. When the exhibition’s focus moves from war to health, we see blanket campaigns across multiple channels, such as the no-nonsense venereal disease video from the British Hygiene Social Council. In the early Aids campaigns of the 1980s, shock tactics and unquestionably direct language in posters and adverts helped to emphasise the urgency of tackling this new disease.

Even the exhibition imagery knows how to target the viewer. Credit: British Library

We end the exhibition in the middle of what historian Nicholas Cull (quoted on one of the blank-faced mannequins) calls ‘the cacophony of cyberspace’. The British Library has pulled out all the stops with its tweet wall, called Chorus, which was designed by the digital art studio Field. Taking three recent major events – Obama’s re-election tweet and its re-tweets, the Sandy Hook shootings and the pro or anti-gun messages thereafter, and the reactions to the 2012 Olympics opening ceremony – the wall displays time-lapsed Twitter reactions from users of the social network. Attention to detail is crucial, allowing the wall to consist of a range of arguments and viewpoints. As a spokesperson from Field explains, in the case of the pro/anti-gun debate in the wake of Sandy Hook: “We looked at key user accounts, such as the NRA, anti-gun campaigners and big focus groups.” This huge project, which began in January, demonstrates how digital media can make propagandists of us all. Ingeniously, the team at Field measured sentiment analysis with an algorithm, so that tweets could then be colour coordinated according to their positive, neutral or negative tone, which allows the viewer to quickly establish the mood at different points in the wake of the Sandy Hook tragedy and in the timeline of the Olympic ceremony. Whether you use Twitter or not, the wall draws you in and makes you realise how technology now makes us able to broadcast our own views to the world, potentially influencing others along the way.

Ultimately, what Propaganda: Power and Persuasion teaches the visitor is that we are all far from immune to the communication of information from the state and from our peers. If someone wants us to believe something, they’ll find a way to speak out about it, even if they don’t exactly resort to launching a propaganda train or organising a leaflet drop. What we can only hope to do is to delve deeper and look at both sides of the argument, as with the tweet wall, and draw our own informed conclusions. To really stay informed, I would say that you should see this very powerful and important exhibition, but I’ll leave that decision up to you.

British Library – 17th May to 17th September – 96 Euston Road, London NW1 2DB.

Entry is £9 for adults, whilst under 18s are free. Concessions available.

Combined with the coverage of the continuing disagreement between China and Japan over some uninhabited islands, you would be forgiven for getting the impression that the Far East, with the world in tow, is about to plunge into war. But the safe bet is that it’s all bluff and bunkum.

In the first case, even if his conventional masses could win the battle for the southern capital, or more of the Korean protuberance, ‘Not-So-Lil’ Kim’ could never hope to win the resultant war. For unlike the last time the Americans fought on the peninsula, the Chinese, the other regional power, are far less likely to come to the rescue or worry about unification. Indeed the relationship between Beijing and Pyongyang is particularly cool. China is rightly fed up of its belligerent neighbour raising the stakes and likewise its nuclear programme pulses.

Equally, North Korea‘s military hardware, although proportionately numerous, is obsolescent compared to their southern brothers and their American allies. Their air force is mostly antiquated and naval strength a mere irritation away from their shore-based deterrents. Their missiles are up against some of the most advanced defence systems and their fledgling nuclear capacity short-ranged and naturally suicidal.

It may yet risk an asymmetric raid, using subterfuge, cyber warfare or WMD’s. It is this gamble, for land or leverage, which could escalate to all out warfare. Facing these realities, any rational state would not risk it. The only debate is whether it’s a state in which logic dominates.

Then there’s the dispute over the Senkaku/Diaoyu islets, equally unlikely to resort to violence. Nevertheless, it must be said that it could potentially create a scenario where China and strategic partner Russia are pitched against Japan and its American and NATO friends.

Yet all are rightly wary of the danger of a situation of such insurmountable seriousness. The tiny rocky islets may well sit atop oil laden seas, but that diminishing resource hasn’t become so inflammatory yet.

The danger is if China dares to harness the open anti-Japanese popular sentiment and speedily seize the islands, only 200 miles from its mainland. From that position it could exact a hefty if not insuperable cost to any who oppose. Such a coup de main would test the resolve of America and its people. After all another world-trembling, possibly thermonuclear, certainly catastrophically bloody, struggle would ensue, over mere pride, pebbles and petroleum.

However, China would not risk war with America. Well, not yet. The Red Army is still far from technological parity across several spectrums. Its societal infrastructure is still embryonic, even backward. In America it faces the world’s richest, most technologically advanced military, supported by a gun-toting populace who aren’t afraid of taking the fight to the enemy’s homeland.

Moreover, the economies of China and America, and therefore their war-making abilities, are increasingly interdependent. Furthermore, Russia has recently come to terms with Japan over a similar quarrel, which reinforces any peaceful precedent.

There are many more, but the above reasons suffice to be able to state, without flippancy, that there’s no basis for panic. Even if the hysterical mainstream media doesn’t acknowledge it. This will remain true until, heaven forbid, the world’s policeman, America, loses its might. To put it simply, in a room full of all the national personifications, crammed with nervous tics and swinging dicks, it’s safest when the grandest manhood belongs to the diverse, stable democracy of Uncle Sam.

The show itself started with a strange dance number that involved BMXing, keyboards and digital paint. Some of the effects were impressive and there’s no doubting the precision that the choreography required, but compared to the London 2012 themed ‘Euphoria’ that opened Tuesday’s Semi, it lacked energy.

It mattered little, as PeR from Latvia got the party started right from the off with sparkling suits and the first stage dive in Eurovision history, made even better when the singer shouted: “FIRST STAGE DIVE IN EUROVISION HISTORY!”

There were a few surprises, as with Tuesday’s show, namely Armenia’s qualification for ‘Lonely Planet’, which featured Captain Jack Sparrow’s younger brother, and Hungary’s hipster entry ‘Kedvesem’, which made the brave decision to sidestep any attempts at charisma or melody. But fair play to them for making the cut.

Dorians Sparrow sings Lonely Planet

The favourites all made it through, with Norway’s Margaret Berger in good form (though I admit I’m still not fond of the song), and Azerbaijan and Georgia (who I have bets on landing a podium finish) both comfortably though – or so one assumes.

Greece were made to sweat by being announced last, but there was no way such a unifying song as ‘Alcohol Is Free’ would fall at this first hurdle. I was particularly pleased to see Malta qualify, especially after the look of extreme worry we saw on Gianluca’s face during the announcements. ‘Tomorrow’ is a charming song, in many ways at odds with Eurovision – or at least what people expect of Eurovision. But there’s still a place for understated, catchy melody and a very smiley looking man who looks like the grocer from Amélie.

They’re even wearing the same jacket.

And a final word for Cezar and Romania. When Petra uttered the four simple syllables that make ‘Romania’, I was surprised to find myself fist pumping and clapping. Yes, ‘It’s My Life’ is in many ways awful; yes, the staging is a volcanic mess; and no, I have absolutely no idea what’s going on. But it’s absolutely mental, and sometimes it’s good to have a bit of that in your life. But only safe in the knowledge that we can make it disappear at the simple click of the standby button…

Roll on the Grand Final!

The arena itself looked spectacular, and Loreen’s opening performance of Euphoria – aided by a choir of children – kicked things off in style. It was reminiscent of London’s Olympic Opening Ceremony, complete with children singing, musical crescendos and the odd bit of industrial-looking staging. In fact, you may even call it ill-judged as it was probably the best song and performance of the night…

Everything went smoothly for most of the acts, except for Cyprus who seemed to waver in and out of key like a broken umbrella in the wind. Zlata Ognevich, singing for Ukraine, was inexplicably carried in by a giant, Montenegro had rapping astronauts, and our hostess for the evening told us we were all going to die alone. There were even grumblings about Denmark’s use of gold confetti, as it sends that subliminal/not so subliminal message that the song is already the winner. So all in all, another classic Eurovision evening.

Despite a few of the favourites performing this evening (Denmark, Russia, Ukraine), Thursday’s semi final will be a far more engrossing watch. There’s more variation and a more open field. That said, there was some pretty shocking results this evening. Every one of the ex-Soviet nations progressed through to the final, including relatively poor showings from Estonia, Lithuania and Belarus. It seems that despite the changes in the way scores are calculated, it’s good to have friends…

Perhaps the biggest casualty of the evening was Serbia, who many fancied to trouble the top three (in this semi final). Moje 3′s downfall was probably their amateur dramatics routine combined with inexplicable costume choices. I was also sad to see Montenegro fail to qualify, as they at least brought something different. (Even if it was a bit shit.)

To end on a positive note though, I decided to make a cheeky last minute flutter on Belgium’s ‘Love Kills’ to qualify and won the modest sum of £20, which I’ll no doubt use to reinvest in another silly bet… It probably won’t make it out of the bottom 5 in the grand final, but I’ve posted it below anyway for your enjoyment.

Bring on round 2!

It seemed that this person wouldn’t be Jenson Button as he continued his string of bad luck he suffered last year by pulling of his worst qualifying session of the season, putting his car into 14th on the grid and, despite having his best qualifying session of the season, Button’s teammate Sergio Perez only placed in 9th, completely blocking off the front of the pack from the McLaren drivers. Neither of the Ferrari drivers were able to get in up front with Fernando Alonso and Felipe Massa placing 5th and 9th, respectively. Even Vettel was unable to place himself in his usual 1st place, something he has never been able to do on this track; he finished qualifying in 3rd on the grid ahead of the race. The Mercedes team seemed to be the only ones that could prove themselves during the session with Nico Rosberg in 1st and Lewis Hamilton in 2nd.

After the lights went out the two Mercedes rolled away from the line, this lazy start from both drivers allowed both Vettel and Alonso to push their way past the traffic, dropping Hamilton down into fourth as two of the most competitive drivers on the track aligned their sights on Nico Rosberg, who remained in 1st. Rosberg showed good fight but it eventually came down to a race between the two pit crews, as both the cars pitted simultaneously. The ever-perfect Red Bull crew produced a good pit, but it wasn’t enough to see Vettel gain 1st, despite all his efforts in a pit-lane race.

Adding further insult to injury, upon Vettel’s emerging from the pit lane, Alonso showed how they drive in Spain and took 3rd place behind Rosberg, who followed Gutierrez in 1st place. Rosberg was able to defend the lead from Alonso for a while but it wouldn’t take a genius to realise that Rosberg’s luck would soon run out – and after several blocks Alonso was able to pass the Mercedes driver. Vettel soon followed Alonso pushing him down into 4th as the Red Bull driver took what was now effectively 2nd and, after Gutierrez dropped into the Sauber garage, Alonso to took 1st with Vettel closing the gap behind. Massa showed he wasn’t going to let his teammate hog the limelight as a good pit and fresh tyres gave him an advantage over other drivers, helping him work his way up into 2nd.
Despite all the speed and power in Red Bull and Ferrari’s cars it was time for Lotus to show their skill. After Romain Grosjean was forced to retire after an issue with one of his wheels, the Lotus team had only one chance of getting a result in Spain. That responsibility rested on Kimi Raikkonen’s shoulders. After Raikkonen forced his way past Vettel using the sheer power behind his four wheels he began his assault on Alonso, who soon submitted to the black and gold car, pushing Raikkonen into 1st. But a DRS fuelled Ferrari F1 car is something not even Vettel can defend against and Alonso soon retook first place from the Lotus driver.After a pit stop from Raikkonen dropped him back into 3rd, Massa was able to take 2nd easily, leaving the front two places owned by the two Ferrari drivers.

Alonso managed to hold his lead to the end, taking the win on home soil, which – in an albeit strange kind of way given F1′s image – may provide a glimmer of positivity for millions of Spaniards suffering mass unemployment. Lotus driver Kimi Raikkonen showed once again that he can contend with the likes of  Alonso and Vettel. The race was a good result for Ferrari as Felipe Massa took 3rd place, making it a double podium for the reds. Vettel drove quite poorly, showing he is beatable. Whether this is the beginning of the end or just a bad day for the Red Bull driver remains to be seen.

As impressive as Alonso’s win was, it does raise the question of his consistency. He hasn’t done brilliantly this year; prior to this race he was in fourth place in the Drivers’ Championship and this result has only boosted him into third. However, if you rewind to the 2012 Spanish Grand Prix, the scenes of Alonso topping the podium would have been very similar to what was seen after this race – it seems that Alonso only really makes an effort when he is proving himself to his home fans. This win might inspire him to do well outside his home country but it will take a lot of hard work to overtake the likes of Raikkonen and Vettel who take the top two spots in the championship.

Things have changed an awful lot since then. This year, 39 countries are vying for the prize (some with more conviction than others), and it takes two semi finals to reduce the competitors to 26 for next Saturday’s Grand Final. For many, the idea of willingly sitting through what will add up to over seven hours of Europe’s interpretation of music is unfathomable. For me, an ironic love has grown into a genuine affection, warts and all.

That said, my enthusiasm has yet to reach the height of recent years. Perhaps it’s because I’m no longer at University and I have an actual job which means I can’t immerse myself completely in a world of block votes and key changes. Or perhaps, as many have suggested, the quality of songs this year simply isn’t as high as in recent years. Regardless of this, here’s a quick run down of a few select entries that are worth looking out for this year…

First up let’s look to home, with Bonnie Tyler representing the UK. Not having learnt from last year, the BBC have de-cobwebbed an old songster from times gone by in the hope that nostalgia and an established European fan base (‘Total Eclipse of the Heart‘ reached the dizzy heights of 18th in the Dutch music charts in 1983) will do us all proud on the big night. Sadly, I don’t think this will be the case. While ‘Believe In Me’ is better than last year’s song, and while Bonnie Tyler couldn’t fail to be a better performer than poor old Englebert, we’d do well to finish in the top half of the leader board. In a ballad-heavy year, the song has nothing remarkable about it. Although if Bonnie performs in the same, drunken manner which I’ve seen in rehearsals, we may well rack up the points from the novelty voters…

The current favourite with the bookies is Denmark’s entry, ‘Only Teardrops’. It’s easy to see why. The song kicks off with some sort of Danish flute (ethnic instruments, check) and builds into a catchy dance number (check), performed by a very cute Danish woman (check) with a slightly ethereal dress sense and hand movements (check). This year’s competition definitely won’t see a runaway winner like ‘Euphoria‘ last year, and if ‘Only Teardrops’ is to win, it’s going to be a very close battle. There are one or two other songs I prefer, but I may well find myself backing this entry come Saturday.

Anyone looking to back a fun outsider this year could do much worse than backing Greece. Their jaunty number is an exuberant mix of sea shanty and ska, all topped off by a man with one of the greatest moustaches Eurovision has ever seen. Oh, and their song is called ‘Alcohol is Free’. A top ten finish isn’t impossible…

A final word for probably my favourite song of this year’s competition. It’s called ‘You’ and it’s sung by a remarkably endearing young chap from Sweden called Robin Stjernberg. The song is a real grower and you can definitely imagine it outside of the Eurovision bubble. I don’t think the fact that Sweden are hosting will damage the song’s chances (if anything, the host nation always performs better than it should), but because the song is a grower I worry it won’t pick up as many votes as I’d like it to. The majority of people watching on the night (you have to assume) are hearing all the songs for the first time, but you never know, I may well end up putting a cheeky flutter on a podium finish. Just have a look at his smiling face at 1:10. And then right at the end. A man so happy to be alive surely deserves your vote!

Tom Brown

Ex-McLaren driver Lewis Hamilton struggled in qualifying, as tyre problems led to only a 4th place finish, deemed no good enough in his eyes. To add further insult to injury, he was charged with a five-place grid penalty for a gearbox change, a change necessitated by the tyre issue. This helped fellow Brit Paul Di Resta, who qualified in 7th, into relatively unfamiliar territory at the front of the pack, as he was pushed up into 5th as a result of Hamilton’s penalty and also one from Webber (who initially qualified in 5th). Vettel managed to qualify 2nd; however this was somewhat drowned out by the performance of Mercedes’s Nico Rosberg, who took pole for just the second time in his career.

Rosberg didn’t get off to a great start, blocking Vettel but allowing an aggressive Fernando Alonso to break away from his Ferrari teammate Felipe Massa and slip past Vettel into second. An Alonso-Vettel battle is something we are all too familiar with but this one was over in a matter of seconds as Vettel showed the true power of his Red Bull car, storming past the Italian with no driver aid at all. Feeling Vettel’s breath down his neck, Rosberg attempted to make a break from the pack but it was not enough to stop Vettel from momentarily taking first place, before taking a wide corner allowed Rosberg to draw even with him and eventually push him back down into second place.

Rosberg’s three-lap lead was cut prematurely short as his defensive driving couldn’t stand another charge from Vettel, with the German again showing the power behind his four wheels – forcing his way past the Mercedes driver into his 1st place comfort zone. Rosberg dropped a further place as Alonso stormed his way past to catch up with Vettel. However, this was short lived as Rosberg, not wanting to give up his lead this early, fought back to reclaim second place and continue his crawl to resume his battle with Vettel.

Again Rosberg felt the pressure of the Ferrari bearing down on him, and as Alonso went in for another attack it seemed Rosberg was out of energy to put up a fight, as the Italian easily pushed his way past the young German. His new threat was new kid on the block Di Resta, who, despite seeming to always place mid-grid, was showing he can contend for the top spots.

Sergio Perez showed he was tired of the quiet start he has had since joining McLaren, as he started to become a little more aggressive…towards his teammate. Clearly it’s an equal playing field on the outside of Perez’s visor. DRS issues meant Alonso had to pit, allowing Di Resta to easily slip up into second, and just as Rosberg was preparing to get himself back into the game his race enthusiasm took another knock as Ferrari’s second driver, Massa, rushed to take his teammate’s place, dropping Rosberg down into fourth. And, after a pit dropped him down into twelfth, it seemed that the race leader wouldn’t have to worry too much about his fellow German.

After Vettel dropped down into fifth following a pit, Di Resta was able to take the lead, in scenes reminiscent of last year’s race in Bahrain. However, it wouldn’t take a genius to work out that Vettel wouldn’t stay in fifth for long, as he moved into fourth and started challenging  for third. After Di Resta was called into the pits Raikkonen took a brief lead before he was passed by Vettel, keen to get back in the driving seat.

Vettel, back in front, managed to create such a gap that even pitting, albeit a typically impressive one from the Red Bull team, allowed  him to emerge just in front of Lotus’ Romain Grosjean.

Meanwhile, Perez and Button continued their personal duel. Despite being teammates there was no sign of either playing friendly as Perez bore down upon Button, who repeatedly blocked him from passing. After contact was made, Perez appeared to back off a little, then Button blocked him again. Not even the contact appeared to calm Perez down, and yet another attack on his teammate ended in Perez being pushed off the track by Button. It appears Button is not letting anything stop him from getting ahead this season.

Vettel maintained his lead to the end, showing once again his willingness to win another title. Paul Di Resta seemed to be in for his first career podium finish as he took third place into the latter stages of the race – only to be overtaken by Grosjean, after which he didn’t have enough fight left to regain that podium finished he so craved – showing once more how cruel F1 can be.

There were no surprises about another Vettel win; love him or loathe him, he is the best racer out there. His critics argue that he isn’t a true racer; he just qualifies at the front and stays there. It’s an interesting argument but 2012′s season finale showed he can pull himself back from the brink on the rare occasions it’s called for. However impressive Vettel’s win was, it seems that the true man of the hour is Paul Di Resta, with a result that might not have been the podium finish he wanted but still matched his best ever result. For a driver who always seems to be placed in 10th or 11th on the grid this race could prove a real encouragement for this young driver. We’ll begin to find out from the next race, in Spain.

Tom Hibbs