Stay up to date with notifications from The Independent

Notifications can be managed in browser preferences.

The incredible, invisible Millennium Dome

David Lister
Tuesday 30 December 1997 19:02 EST
Comments

Your support helps us to tell the story

From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.

At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.

The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.

Your support makes all the difference.

Peter Mandelson and his cohorts in charge of the Millennium Dome were recently chastised by a Commons Select Committee for refusing to say what the Dome will actually contain. They have reacted in the most extreme and effective manner. Pretend the thing doesn't exist.

The controversial pounds 750m superstructure, which is soaking up 20 per cent of the Millennium Commission's money, was conspicuous by its absence from a newly unveiled Internet website showing where the lottery-generated cash is being spent.

But was it cock-up or conspiracy? Was this the dawn of a two-year campaign of spin doctoring to convince the public that the Dome was never more than an absurd fantasy, the product of fevered, egomaniacal imaginations? The Commission insisted that the Dome's non-appearance was an administrative oversight rather than a deliberate attempt to play down its significance in favour of less contentious projects which have been overshadowed by publicity given to the New Millennium Experience.

Mike O'Connor, policy director, said: "It's a mistake, an oversight. It's not a conspiracy and it will be on there. We thought it was on there already and we expected it to be. It will be on there." He said that the Dome would feature along with major capital projects being funded by the Commission as a "pin prick", which browsers could click on to find out more about its background.

The website also features the new logo for Commission-funded projects, a distorted blue "M" hovering over an orange crescent. Suggestions that it looked like an M for Mandelson rising above a Dome were dismissed by officials who said it symbolised the dawning of the new Millennium.

But if the Millennium Commission really is serious about putting the Dome on to the website, why doesn't it take a truly radical stance and put it only on the website? If the picture of their most cherished project looked nice on the Internet, why not let that virtual Dome replace the real thing? How grand it would look in 3-D colour. We could all visit the Dome without having to worry about whether the Jubilee line extension was up and running. Sir Cameron Mackintosh could have whatever lavish spectacle he liked, courtesy of state-of-the-art computer graphics. Peter Mandelson could spin doctor the opening in cyberspace. It would definitely be ready on time. And the country would save pounds 750m.

Join our commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged inPlease refresh your browser to be logged in