Why this millennium logo is just plain wrong

IF YOU were choosing a symbol of the millennium, what would you look for?

A piece of art that would live for another millennium? The best work of the most up to date designers and sculptors? An imposing monument?

These, it appears are the qualities sought by the creators of the Millennium Doll, a (literally) statuesque female figure whom I suppose we'll eventually come to call Millennia, who will be the symbol for the nation's celebrations in the year 2000.

We won't ever learn to love her though. When it comes to being hard and forbidding, next to Millennia, Lady Thatcher looks like a Tellytubby. Actually, the principal quality that a popular millennium logo needs is that it should fit on Prince William's baseball cap.

However, who cares? I do, for rather personal reasons, which I will share with you, as I need advice.

If you have friends who are artists or television producers or writers, you live in a constant state of dread. What if you don't like their next production? The better they know you, the harder it is - they can tell when you're lying.

I cursed the day that the video recorder became a common household item. No longer could I pretend that I hadn't seen programmes - that would only encourage people to send you a tape, and then you'd have no choice but to tell the truth.

The same goes for exhibitions of pictures and newly-published books.

Normally, this doesn't matter with politicians. They know that they are right and that you are wrong; and since it's usually hard to get a word in edgeways, the problem doesn't arise. However, even the most emollient of commentators - that's me, folks - finally meets Nemesis.

In my case it is Millennia. I need not belabour my political connections, which are well-known, or recount my epiphany on the way to Greenwich. The Dome will succeed, whatever it is for , and whatever is in it because it is so damned big.

In fact, the most brilliant solution might be to scrap all the plans and simply let people revel in the massive volume of space under the canopy. It'd be cheaper and in today's close-packed city, it would probably be a unique experience for most urban kids - which means most British children.

I don't suppose anybody will take me up on this novel idea.

Anyway, as you can tell, this is all prevarication; the real subject that people are talking about across the land is the new symbol for the millennium. As it has been chosen by a friend of mine and designed by the man who did the titles for several of my early programmes, it would be much easier to say "I lurve it darlings". Sadly I don't.

I don't hate it, though.

I don't really have any feelings at all about it. It is rather difficult to get worked up about this rather modernist, sexless, muscular figure. And her severity of posture suggests that if you did get too worked up you'd be well in line for a good smack in the mouth. This woman isn't going to take any nonsense from a bloke like me. I'd like to embrace the millennium; but I don't think that Millennia would take too kindly to being hugged by a stranger.

What is the point of a millennium logo anyway? Presumably this is part of the modern art of "branding", which is the practice of making things that are not particularly connected seem as though they belong to each other by putting a striking symbol on both of them.

Millennia's job, I suppose is to connect all the diverse activities that will claim to celebrate the year 2000; but surely, if so, one of the key qualifications of such a symbol is that anyone, anywhere should be able to copy it easily. It should, as I pointed out, also fit easily on to T-shirts and the baseball caps worn customarily by any old William (Windsor, Hague, Clinton).

If the organisers of the year's activities had their wits about them they would have gone to the people who gave us the infectious simplicity of McDonald's golden arches, or Disney's Mouse, or the Nike tick. These are the examples of great contemporary design; and what is most surprising is that Martin Lambie-Nairn, who came up with Channel Four's brilliant multicoloured "4", should have gone along with this.

It may not be too late to change the thing. If so, where are the most likely sources of inspiration?

Perhaps the female motif is the right approach. A Spice Girl's boot might say something important about late twentieth century values; or since we are a nation obsessed by the the bosom , an upside-down "M" might give us something simple to hold on to.

If that doesn't attract, football is our national game; we could take a leaf out of the England team's book and use a pack of fags, a kebab and a bottle of tequila to symbolise our culture. This would have the added virtue of emphasising our cosmopolitanism as a nation.

Or we could just fall back on the outline of an instantly recognisable ancient monument, though I think that Barbara Cartland might feel a little aggrieved if her silhouette were not projected in pink.

However, not for the first time, the French may have something to teach us.

For the bicentennial celebration of the French Revolution they struck new coins with the profile of Liberty on the reverse. As their model, they chose the most striking face they had, that of Catherine Deneuve, whose strong, classic features have come to represent the best of French womanhood.

Should we not be thinking along the same lines? We could be completely gender-free in our choice, and select the profile by referendum (why not? we do everything else this way these days) but then we'd end up with Richard Branson, who wins every popularity poll going.

So the choice must be left to the women. There are many whose profiles might exactly personify our nation at its most characteristic to become our New Millennia.

Think Tiffany from EastEnders, or Dot Cotton, with that emblematic fag hanging from the lower lip. Think of the sophistication of Naomi, the elegance of Joanna Lumley, the power of Anne Widdicombe.

Or maybe, just maybe ... has anyone seen Ginger Spice lately?