Thank you

For goodness sake he is Chair of the Health Committee it his job to ask these questions. There job is to hold government to account - it is what he is paid to do. In addition had it not entered your head that in seeking to increase testing from 5,000 or so a day to 100,000 in the midst of a crisis the government were not arguing that there had been enough testing capacity at the beginning of the crisis.

Well said I am afraid the general point is good but two really bad subjects to choose.

Forensic science is a rigorous scientific subject - it has transferable skills that are useful to industry. For example the laboratory skills involved in forensic science are transferable to the healthcare sector. Your comparison of a Sports Science degree with an army PTI training course is I am afraid just not comparing like with like and has transferability across a huge range of disciplines and is at much higher level. It also betrays a lack of understanding about sports science. Your general point has serious merit but you have chosen two courses that really are rigorous and useful to employers across industry. There are degrees particularly in more arty subjects for example media studies where you are on much firmer ground and students are being left with huge debt for little benefit which is a moral issue.

Two basic ways that government can improve productivity - firstly invest in infrastructure (think how much productivity has been saved over the last couple of months by broadband) and secondly skills. Really good piece by Ben it would be great if the government really motored on this.

There are probably subjects that have less merit than others but sports science - which you probably know little about - is very academically rigorous and graduates often go into roles in healthcare. I only know about this because in my previous career I recruited a professor of Sports Science and would have had your prejudice but quickly saw that it was a good deal more rigorous than my own history degree. Also forensic science - if you want to lock people up for committing crime you need forensic scientists.

I sort of agree - however being fair to Mrs May - her administration took place during a political crisis and the very nature of those things are that the top table will change. One of the features of any good leader is that he will select people who are better than he/she, and in politics it takes the personal courage to have people who are effective and maybe rivals. To have good government you need a blend of able people at different levels of their career trajectory. It is a bit of cliché using the army as an example but on the staff of any good General you have passed over Colonels who probably had the ability to be a General but for one reason or another - perhaps a sod of a person writing his report - did not make it. People in the army have bought into to it, are being helped with school fees, think about their pension and say well to hell with it I only have x years left. In politics it is not quite like that and therefore much more difficult to manage. Very few people in the political world seem to accept their lot - they are ambitious and overt patronage is a bigger feature than in a lot or organisations. People are promoted because of a line they took on a certain issue, because they have done something for the boss, in a way that is more nuanced in other organisations. There are no staff college exams in most other walks of life there is some kind of formal barrier to pass in order to be promoted. Looking at the cabinet - there is a lack of experience, Boris did not have the courage with the exception of Gove to bring in a potential rival and because of that I think his government is weaker than it needed to be.

Max I would quibble with Johnny Mercer who I really don't think is at, or will ever reach, cabinet level but the others are good and in particularly Ellwood and Mordaunt people who have been around the block. However, all of them from military backgrounds - there are other people from non service backgrounds who are very good. Tugendhat is very bright and I can't really understand why he has not progressed.

Elaine an industrial tribunal is an independent judicial process and the government can be found to have constructively dismissed the civil servant for all manor of reasons - not just bullying. Sedwell's inquiry was of political not legal significance.think Pritti Patel is still in all sorts of trouble over this.

I have a bit of sympathy with you regarding Piers Morgan however the big beasts send underprepared junior Ministers who are not at the centre of Coronavirus to do battle with him which they appear not to have the courage to do themselves.