Sorry for the quiet August on the blog – and thanks to my colleague Gavin Hinks for posting while I've been away – but it seems I haven't missed much.

Accounting irregularities at iSoft may have hogged the headlines (it looks like an early-booking problem that causes too many sales-led organisations to yield to the temptation of a short-term numbers boost) but the story that caught my eye saw Cambridge University and other leading academic institutions labelling accounting a soft option at A-Level.

Is it really less effective preparation for a degree than other more traditional subjects?

Finance directors disagree, according to a poll in tomorrow's Accountancy Age. As one respondent said: ‘Accounting and mathematics are the most important life skills needed to survive in modern business. How an institution with the academic prowess of Cambridge University can dumb down the skill is beyond me.’

I have to say I can't see why either. Latin is a more traditional subject but is it better preparation for a degree? With the ICAEW and others involved in laudable numeracy campaigns this doesn't sound like a helpful intervention.

The language used in the debate (looking more like a row every day) over audit competition in the UK is already on the edge of turning purple.

Peter Wyman, PwC's lobbyist in chief, has trashed as 'brainless' the suggestion that Big Four firms should shed clients if they control too much of the audit market.

Wyman's pillory was aimed at comments from the Association of British Insurers, representative of some of the country's biggest investors. And, in theory, who do auditors work for? Company owners. And who are they? The investors. Oops.

While Wyman is entitled to his view (and who knows he may be right!) his comments indicate a decision to put diplomacy to one side - for the time being at least.

Today, it's been revealed that the Big Four should follow mainstream corporate governance, which means appointing independent directors, split powers between chief execs and a chairman, all the stuff listed companies are supposed to do.

We'll be trying to find out whether Peter Wyman and the Big Four's reaction to this suggestion is any more or less diplomatic.

Gavin Hinks, editor, Accountancy Age

(Damian Wild is on holiday)

No news from the ICAEW bunker on who might succeed Eric Anstee when he goes later in the year. The headhunters' surprisingly short deadline has passed– perhaps suggesting that the powers that be already had someone in mind.

I hear that an early front-runner, current chief operating officer Michael Izza, who had the support of a handful of council members, is not seen as a likely successor, though he is very highly rated.

However the institute appears to be in favour of a candidate who carries weight externally. Anstee had spent his career talking to the City. He had a practice background and he had CFO experience too. He had even dipped a toe in governmental waters.

His was a highly persuasive CV, though I gather he was no shoe-in. Other candidates ran him close. But those unnamed candidates are unlikely to still be interested in the job three years on. So who could the institute go for?

A former CFO like John Coombe, formerly of GlaxoSmithKline would be an attractive option. But why would be interested given his string of non-executive directorships. How about David Varney, the soon to be ex-chairman of HMRC? The fact that he is not an accountant would not necessarily be an obstacle – think of Des Hudson at ICAS. And Varney has served on the boards of BG, MMO2 and Shell, while his chairmanship of Business in the Community ticks a CSR box too. But would he want to make the move to Moorgate Place when he remains a full-time adviser to Gordon Brown.

A dark horse has to be the favourite in this particular race though one more familiar name springs to mind.

Is there a chartered accountant out there with enough experience of the City, with good contacts within the investment community after a career in investment banking, is a former Big Four partner and an ex-CFO to boot?

There is one. The only problem is that Charles Tilley is chief executive of CIMA.

Surely not….

I'm off on holiday now – have a good August. Perhaps there will be news by the time I return.