The Mercury nominees are in, and as usual, a plethora of fine British albums have been given the nod. The Year of the Bowie sees the man himself become the oldest ever nominee, and along with Foals, Arctic Monkeys, Savages and Jake Bugg, it looks like rock music's back in favour. But throw the words "Mercury Music Prize" over to a group of people who know their XX from their X Factor, and you'll probably get mixed opinions; for such a revered music award, it doesn't half cause controversy. Well, not controversy in the sense of Jarvis Cocker baring his arse, more the fact that Radiohead have never won. Every year, music critics analyse who's been nominated, who hasn't, and who should win, but is it actually worth winning, looking back on its history? Does it really offer up the best British album of the year? Are even the best ones nominated? Can it really be called a credible alternative to the Brits, as it was intended to be? Let's take a look back at the past 21 years of the award, the winners, the losers, the could've beens and Speech Debelle; did the right acts win, and what have they done since?