28 June 2022: Bottomley - A
Baroness Virginia Bottomley presented as the consummate professional senior former politician with a power dressing wardrobe, manicured hair, costume accessories, and precisely received pronunciation. Her reporting on past Ministerial roles contained an air of confidence, quoting Ken Clarke who saw her as trustworthy and able to get on with the job (self-praise by proxy). She expressed a lifelong commitment to health and cited evidence to justify saying so – very smoothly done. The Baroness was certainly well connected, particularly with people whose lives were intrinsically tied to the health agenda; mainly through knowing or being related to doctors. She managed to walk the narrow line of characterising Clarke as a “window breaker” but a great person to work for, and Waldegrave as a “glazier” who was cerebral. She reverenced her senior advisers as intelligent, sensitive, morally sound, and great judges of character. The tone of the introductory exploration of her whole history in Government came across as extremely polite and deferential. She passed comment on the gender imbalances, the older-man way of thinking and doing things, and using a kind of anachronistic series of jolly japes. VB trumpeted her pioneering role in promoting the cause of women in Government and other senior roles, both as an exemplar herself and as an advocate. Her husband, Peter Bottomley was mentioned as a long-term champion for the needs of the needy. Speaking of the Co-Chair of the All Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Haemophilia and Contaminated Blood, we await the justification for both of the Bottomleys being so closely associated with the APPG. Of course, it will not be anything to do with keeping an eye on the agenda you previously controlled to influence it in the preferred direction as an insider.
The witness spent some time stressing the importance of being truthful, and immediately correcting mistakes. To be found to have not told the truth (she couldn’t bring herself to use the word “lie”) was back then considered unforgivable. Her aside about the same standards not appearing to apply nowadays seemed to be seeking a popular response. One or two in the audience politely obliged.
It appears Ken Clarke was not the type of leader who liked to do business through formal meetings. He preferred informal conversations (over a glass or three of certain beverages, no doubt). But it also came out that even formal meetings in the DH were not always minuted. She mentioned the heavy workload (taking 11 boxes home to read at the weekend). The Baroness mentioned a joke she had with her daughter about what to do if a strange woman came to the door. The response was to let her in because it was likely to be her mother. This writer is beginning to see this witness as a slightly gauche, not slightly embarrassing auntie. Her jocular stories, twee observations, and attempted hipster comments are dissonant. An impression is coming through which harks back (or barks back) to a certain posh lady television dog trainer (hence the barking reference) who advised people to occasionally stand in the dog basket to demonstrate power over their subordinate household canine. “Walkies.”
Yellowlees got another subtle kick, in contrast to other Chief Medical Officers (CMOs). This seemed to be more preparatory “grist to the mill” towards scapegoating via a dead man, should it be deemed necessary as a latter line of defence when the dust settles on the Inquiry. Thus far, the witness has been happy to give a whistlestop tour through how Government happens, with the occasional dropping of a preferred narrative messaging marker along the way; plus reminding everyone how good she was at her job at least once every 300 seconds. It was like a sport for her to read, question, and challenge her advisers. Of course, this was nothing to do with asserting her authority for its own sake (the Woodhouse Way).
Reference was again made to the Territories. VB’s approach was perhaps more collegiate than Mr Mellor’s, given his previous evidence to the Inquiry, but she did concede that when it came to getting money or other concessions, the Territories “got away with murder”. This is surely a “killer” comment, laced with irony.
Counsel went through a series of questions about the respective roles and relationships between Health Ministers and senior advisers, the CMO in particular. It included hypothetical cases where there might be a disagreement, or cases of wrong advice. The witness is very careful to express her answers in gentle, non-confrontational, non-accusative terms. If her surname was not so ripe for jesting wordplay, it might be tempting to suggest the witness change her name to Baroness Virginia Euphemism.
Comments
Post a Comment