The new Labour leader has a stark choice. One way forward is for Labour to go back to its roots as the voice of - believe it or not - labour, as well as of the underprivileged.

The economy will always pitch the haves against the have-nots and a booming economy, sad to say, does not make poverty, deprivation and social exclusion go away. If anything, booms widen the gap between the lucky ones who rise with the tide and the poor who are left behind, and who need a champion more than ever. High growth rates seduce many into thinking everything in the economic garden is rosy.

Labour's natural role is to be that champion. This, of course, implies a sharp shift to the left. It will mean insisting to those with their hands clasped tightly on the purse strings that the less well-off deserve decent and fulfilling lives too, and that there is no alternative to serious redistribution of wealth if we are to achieve this.

It means convincing those who live safe lives in cosy suburbs that unemployment, crime, dereliction and despair are their responsibility too in a civilised society, not just the problems of poor people who live in some foreign country on the other side of the tracks.

In pragmatic electoral terms, furthermore, a shift to the left might not be as costly as it seems at first sight. To be sure the current tiny Democratic Left vote offers slim enough pickings but, as we saw in the presidential election, the non-voters' party is swelling its ranks by the minute.

Many of these non-voters can be found among the poor and the socially excluded who feel, quite rightly, that the current system has so little to offer them that it's hardly worth getting excited about which of the mainstream parties to vote for.

If it moves in this direction, Labour will need to shed its establishment image and become altogether rougher and tougher and more exciting. It can be done. And Labour can do it in a way that John Bruton, for example, or David Andrews, can never be convincing as champions of the long-term unemployed in Ballyfermot.

But will a rough, tough new Labour have any realistic prospect of getting back into office in the State? And is it not downright self-indulgent to be a voice thundering righteously in the wilderness, with no hope at all of gripping the levers of power on behalf of those you represent?

On this view another way forward for Labour is to head straight back into power from as strong a position as possible. Of course, we know pretty much what this scenario would look like since Labour has been a party of government for the past 25 years or so. It has made compromises to get Labour feet under successive cabinet tables and has presided in coalition over policies - cuts in public services that help the less well-off or amnesties for rich tax-dodgers - that would drive a rough, tough new Labour into an apocalyptic fury.

The justification of party pragmatists has been straightforward. Such compromises are the price of power and put many other Labour policies into place.

And Labour has done very well in its policy negotiations with coalition partners - for example, the party could hardly have done better than controlling both finance and foreign affairs portfolios in its most recent coalition.

But shifting firmly to the left and having a realistic chance of getting back into power are not mutually exclusive. Ireland is not Britain and the rightwards lurch of Blairite British New Labour offers no model for what can be done here.

In electoral terms, the centre-right is already overcrowded in Ireland, while the urban middle class voters who represent the target group in this area have shown they cannot be relied on for long-term support.

Parties courting this vote have done well in the short term - Fine Gael under FitzGerald, the PDs under O'Malley and Labour under Spring - but have all been forced to return their gains at the next election.

The real key to Labour's future is the Irish coalition system and the continuing refusal of Fianna Fail and Fine Gael even to think about going into power with each other.

This means, quite unlike the situation in Britain, that a decent-sized Labour Party simply cannot be excluded from office. It also means (and Labour has yet to really learn this lesson) that it will be courted as a coalition partner even if it promotes a significantly more left-wing position than at present. The recent coalition including Fine Gael and Democratic Left has shown us that everything, more or less, is on the table.

So a shift to the right is not only the wrong way to build a solid and loyal support base that might last the party for a generation. Given the mutual hostility of Fianna Fail and Fine Gael, revived with a vengeance during the recent presidential election, a shift to the right is not even necessary if Labour wants to retain the option of bargaining its way back into office.

A rougher, tougher and more exciting new Labour would have a huge well of potential support to tap from among those who are currently alienated and excluded from the system. It need pander no longer to a fickle and disloyal urban middle class. Yet it can still command the Dail seats that other parties will die for when it comes to forming a government.

Michael Laver is professor of political science at TCD and was a member of the Constitution Review Group. His recent books include Making and Breaking Governments (1996); Private Desires, Political Action (1997) and Playing Politics: the Nightmare Continues (1997).