I prefer to make my point on this on the BBC board as that seem to be a more appropriate place for this debate. But yes, Liam the ratio of artists to the number on the panel with four choices each does deliver low numbers at the nomination stage. I think this is a weakness and have said so to John Leonard. There are ways of improving the ratio for the benefit of all - but i don't the results would be very different. But this is a far cry from the horrid huddle of hoary hacks that many imply.

I don;t follow you John, when you say:

"Surely votes by "informed" people should not be the criteria by which awards are given. Better it would be if judgement was made on the results of what a group of enthusiasts of all ilk found pleasing to the ear, enhancing the "genre", recognising virtuosity, informative and entertaining."

The 'informed' people ARE "a group of enthusiasts of all ilk." I've suggested that a bigger panel would be better - and this year they did ask (admittedly not very loudly) for new volunteers (most people qualify by one means or another). Artists are still debarred, but agents are now banned from voting for their own acts (an improvement though not watertight yet). Both these developments have a lot to do with the very good results this year (not that they were bad before - just less robust).

Take the trouble to find out exactly how the awards work, then make polite suggestions to the right people and you may just get results.

Tom