THE ELECTION of a Labour government committed to rebuilding the foundation of the country and its economy has rattled the right-wing press, which is now hell-bent on destabilising the newly elected government.

With their attempt to manufacture a “giftgate” scandal around some clothing bought, glasses worn, and flats borrowed by Keir Starmer and Taylor Swift concerts hospitality for senior members of the government failing to get traction, they turned to the Budget.

“Nightmare on Downing Street” was the Daily Telegraph’s verdict. Not to be outdone, The Sun called it a “Halloween horror show.”

In this context, it is unfortunate that some trade union leaders and some on the left chose to join in calling it “austerity by another name.”

And then there is the futile argument of who or what is meant by “working people,” demanding it be called by its proper name, the working class. But hey — what is in a name? A rose by any other name and all that.

This approach by some on the left is as dangerous as it is unwarranted, for the thrust of the Budget is precisely what the country needs and what Labour promised to deliver. The TUC was right to endorse it: “The Chancellor has acted decisively to deliver an economy that works for working people.”

The working class voted for a government that promised to take steps to rebuild Britain’s crumbling infrastructure and revive its industrial base within the confines and restrictions of capitalism. Workers did not vote for a revolution.

The path chosen by the government is what Sir Keir calls “wealth creation” as distinct from the common or garden “growth,” an economic measure that includes such activities as gambling and advertising in its calculations.

Ironically, though, the simple intent is to rebuild Britain, and Labour has allocated no less than £100 billion towards that task, which is by itself revolutionary.

It is a challenge to capitalism at the present phase of its evolution, a nihilistic phase characterised by de-industrialisation at home, capital’s flight abroad and the promotion and prosecution of destructive regional wars.

Detractors of Rachel Reeves’s Budget demand a wealth tax. From the point of view of rebuilding, a wealth tax is not the game changer its proponents think it is. If it is used to fund public services, as its advocates call for, it is purely distributive.

It takes money that would be spent in one area of the economy to be spent in another. What is gained in terms of employment in the latter is lost in the former. It does not generate wealth.

Apart from the difficulties in collecting this tax, there is nothing to stop the financial wealth of the country from absconding abroad.

Far better is to call for exchange controls to prevent our financial wealth from leaving the country to places where labour is cheap, trade unions are weak or non-existent, and exploitation is ripe.

Others have a shopping list of what ought to be done and done immediately, from wholesale nationalisation of the railways and public utilities to removing the two-child benefit cap and the restoration of the winter fuel allowance to everyone — regardless of whether they are in need of it or not — without the faintest idea of how all of this would be financed and as workers know, financial probity is fundamental.

The increased funding for the NHS, for education and for local government, the rise in the minimum wage, the increase in employers’ National Insurance contributions, the changes in capital gains tax, workers’ rights and the increased borrowing to fund £100bn in capital investment have already caused ripples in the financial markets.

As things stand, the government must be wary of an unforgiving market, for whether we like it or not, Britain is embedded within the international capitalist system. It cannot extract itself from it overnight.

What can be done, however, is to decrease our dependence on the vagaries of international capital by, on the one hand, fostering self-reliance through wealth creation and, on the other hand, begin to develop an independent foreign policy reflecting our national security needs and respecting the security needs of others.

The election of Donald Trump in the US makes that even more urgent. A good starting point would be establishing friendly relations and strong trading links with all nations, East and West, including Russia and China, and breaking out of Nato’s suffocating grip, a corollary of Brexit.

The government could fund its public investment programme, in whole or in part, by utilising its considerable powers to restrict private finance investment, allowing the Bank of England to fund its expenditure directly, but that will cause government bonds to collapse, resulting in a financial crisis, the last thing a new government needs.

Such an approach to funding public expenditure requires long and careful preparations. For now, borrowing remains the safest and most practical option.