But government appointing their own is the point of having elections

We’re fully in favour of Katherine Birbalsingh:

Katharine Birbalsingh, the founder of the “super-strict” London-based Michaela community school,

We’d not say “super-strict” we’d say she has founded and runs a super-successful educational establishment. By which we mean that it educates the pupils of it, no other definition of success really comes usefully to mind.

However, the bit in this story that interests is this:

Birbalsingh’s appointment would raise eyebrows, following previous claims that the government was placing hand-picked allies into key public roles.

This is rather the point of having elections, no? The people, that’s you and us and me, decide that the path of government has become unrighteous and we’d like a change. If enough of us do so at an election then the change of government does happen. The manner by which the path then changes is that government appoints people it agrees with, likes, to those key public roles.

If those key roles, even after that change in government, continue to come from the same previously approved ideological class then what value that democratic decision?

If every victims’ commissioner, child poverty commissioner, social mobility commissioner, online hate commissioner and Uncle Tom Cobbleigh commissioner continues to come from the same small pool of those who agree with the ancien regime then how much overthrowing - in accordance with that democratic vote - of the anciens is going to happen?

The answer being, of course, not a lot. Which is why these reports of unnamed eyebrows being raised. To try to fend off that change in defiance of the expressed views of us mere peasantry out here. Don’t we know that whoever we vote for, whatever it is that we desire, we should continue to do what we’re told by the same establishment that we’ve rejected?

The entire point of elections is to be able to change who rules us. That includes who gets appointed to key public roles.