Telegraph Lord Rogers, the Labour enobled architect has spat his dummy right across the shop floor over Prince Charles' 'unconstitutional' interference in his bid to knock out a bunch of sh!t looking buildings for the Qataris. The Champagne Socialist and fav' of the Labour Party, who was given a seat in the Lords by Labour has whined and moaned (as have many of his Labour luvvie friends) about this unelected Prince's naughty influence with foreign Princes and Royal families (lummy, who'd a thunk it eh?). Lord Rogers (not actually elected into anything or any place by the erm, electorate said that the Prince has no right to interfere with democratic decisions on planning . . . . . . forgetting that using his own name and influence with Labour luvvies to get the planning department to kiss his arrse amounts to the very same peddling of influence that he accuses Prince Charles of. The good news is that this is the SECOND Lord Rogers-inspired carbunkle that the Good Prince has managed to stop in its tracks. Let's be honest about this - the Lord Rogers buildings were monstrosities that not many people at all liked, including the 400 local residents who wrote into the planning office to register their complaints (not that THEY had a democratic voice or anything), they were all the same, they were all ugly, they all cut out a load of light, they all harked back to a 1960's architectural idealism which has already been shown to provide society with crime-rich ghettos from the once-green and verdant grass at ground level all the way up to the piss-stinking lift shafts and stairwells to the mouldering walls at roof level. That is the legacy of him kind and their Labour luvvie idealist backers. The tower blocks of the 50's, 60's and 70's - thankfully, most of them knocked down now. JUST because he's a celebrated luvvie architect and a darling of the left, and JUST because he's a Lord, and JUST because his design includes 'lost of steel and glass' does not make these buildings pretty, in keeping with London, livable, or have any kind of decent shelf life in terms of habitability. I don't hate his design because he's a luvvie Labour ponce, or that he peddles his influence amongst the idealists and ruling party to get his own way, or that he cries like a baby when he's outflanked by the Prince of the Realm using one of his own moves - I hate his design because it's sh!t - and the initial, sketched proposal by Prince Charles and HIS architect are a considerable improvement - with a lot more light at ground level, a lot more friendly open spaces between the buildings, and a lot longer lasting stone buildings as opposed to 'glass and steel'. Prince Charles is a man who stands by his convictions, defends what is right, and is a good deal more ecologically friendly than 'The Ponce Rogers'. Anyway, that's my thoughts on the matter: Dry your eyes Rogers, you lost, London won. End of.