Hitchens: Prince Charles is a crunchy con

I think that his general view of life is actually quite close to the rather attractive position known in the USA as 'crunchy conservatism', for which I have a lot of time.

This involves being genuinely conservative about institutions, religion, architecture, landscape, language and art - while accepting that a lot of the things that the post-1960s generation enthuse about have a point. Bicycles are a good way of getting around crowded cities. Organic farming - for example - may not produce healthier food. I don't know. But there is no doubt that it is hugely beneficial to the countryside and the creatures and plants that used to flourish in it.

Before it was kidnapped by the zealots, the environmental cause involved small, reasonable moral actions taken by individuals for their own benefit and the benefit of others, rather than highly-publicised gestures designed to look correct without actually achieving anything. (A good word should be put in here for a critic and opponent of mine, George Monbiot, who in a TV programme a week ago pointed out with some force that much government and corporate 'action' on global warming is in fact empty posing.) I think Charles was an early advocate of such measures.

I think his charitable work is thoughtful and often effective. I think his management of the Duchy of Cornwall is generally benevolent. I think his attack on crass modern architecture was entirely justified. I think Poundbury is a reproach to much modern housebuilding. And I think that his instinctive feeling that he can act as the champion for people disenfranchised by Blairism is also right and justified.