Shabana Mahmood is one of the outstanding politicians of this generation. She is admired across the political spectrum. This morning the Home Secretary is cited everywhere, including this morning’s splash in the Financial Times, as Andy Burnham’s chancellor. Reaction in the gilt or government bond market this morning? Zilch. Reaction among Labour MPs across all wings of the party, left, right and centre? Eek. Why? Because successful governments of the past forty plus year have all had at the centre powerful chancellors with a vision of how the economy works, from Howe, to Lawson, to Brown to Osborne. Visions all different. Ability to drive important change all shared. And although Mahmood may have such a vision and a plan, she has shown no evidence of it. She did a brief stint more than ten years ago shadowing junior Treasury ministers, but she has never evinced any great interest in or manifested any solutions for the great challenge faced by Burnham: how to end almost twenty years of stagnation in productivity, growth and living standards? So what on earth is going on? Why would Burnham choose her? Here is the shorthand. His ally-who-would-be-chancellor, Ed Miliband, is seen as too disliked by too many powerful interests, from trade union leaders, to business leaders, to investors and the right-wing media. That he almost certainly has the best qualifications to be chancellor - deep knowledge of how the Treasury works and an economic vision - is seen as not enough. But why rule out other candidates, such as Yvette Cooper, who does have deep experience of the Treasury, or Wes Streeting, who has articulated a programme that actually looks like a growth plan? Or why not skip a generation, as Cameron did with Osborne, and appoint someone who knows a thing or two about economics, and has been an important Burnhamite, such as Miatta Fahnbulleh. Well, according to those who know Burnham’s mind, he and his transition team just want someone at Number 11 who will simply execute their will. The plan is to drive the economy from 10 Downing Street. On this model, poor Mahmood would be a cipher for Burnham and his cabal. And she would be a fabulous cipher at that, because her revealed skill at the Home Office is to brook no opposition from officials and to drive reform. If this is Burnham’s plan, it is hugely risky, and I suspect it would end in tears. Burnham won’t personally have the time to micromanage the Treasury. No prime minister does. And the Treasury, like no other department, can only be led by someone - the Chancellor - with personal expert authority and a plan. In all other circumstances, the Chancellor is led by officials. Also I very much doubt Mahmood would allow herself to be any prime minister’s puppet or cipher in any case. By far the biggest decision Burnham will take in his first days as prime minister is his choice of chancellor. It is possible he has an insight into Mahmood’s economic expertise that is yet to be seen and heard by the rest of the world - or even by his most intimate allies. It is no exaggeration to say the success or failure of his government will depend on it.