One of the great strengths of the new Labour Party is the talent and commitment of the people it has. Front-of-house, and in the back room, no other party can boast as much dedication.

The last thing people like that need is baldy old advisers hanging around saying "this is how we used to do it in my day . . ." So I promise this is going to be my only shot at offering advice - and I hope anyone reading it will take it in the spirit it's meant.

I just wanted to mention something that made my heart sink recently. I was driving up from the country on Budget day, and listened - for the first time in many years - to the entire Budget speech of the Minister for Finance. Skipping over its oratorical qualities, there was one paragraph that stuck in my mind. The more I thought about it, the more I became convinced that if ever there was a case for a strong, angry and committed left, this paragraph was it.

It occurred early on in the speech. After dealing with some of his concerns about the "new problems" that prosperity brings in its wake, the Minister said this: "My philosophy regarding social exclusion and poverty is quite simple. To be in a position to make progress means the Exchequer having adequate moneys, distributing these resources to the most deserving and ensuring the resources applied are effectively used for those who need them."

We could spend a lot of time parsing and analysing what the Minister didn't say (He didn't say "My philosophy regarding poverty is that it's a scourge, and the over-riding purpose of Government ought to be to end it . . ."). No, what he said was that the first priority was to ensure the money was available - the second was to make sure that it went to the most deserving - and the third was need.

No doubt there are people who agree with that order of priorities - whoever said, many years ago, "Labour must wait"? For my part, I believe the Minister meant exactly what he said - and therein lies the challenge to the left.

It lies partly in the re-emergence of that old word "deserving". We're familiar with the concept of the deserving poor - all too familiar. But how do we measure "deserving" in the Minister's eyes? One way might be to take a cursory look at the relative proportions of the largesse in his speech - according to the Minister's own logic, the more you got the more deserving you must be.

Thus taxpayers got relief to the value of £581 million in a full year, while the total cost of social inclusion measure was £287 million. So taxpayers are twice as deserving as those who are excluded from full participation.

But that mightn't be comparing like with like - there are an awful lot of taxpayers, and we don't try to count the numbers of excluded people in Ireland (that would be a bit uncomfortable). So let's try another comparison from the Minister's speech - £24 million for bookies in a full year, and £18 million for people with a mental handicap. There must be an awful lot of deserving bookies too . . .

I could go on, but you get the general picture. In a time of the greatest prosperity Ireland has ever known those who are poor, excluded, disabled, neglected must take their place in the queue, and a long way down the queue at that. ail debate, that they have been "looked after".

How does it feel, I wonder, to spend a lifetime contributing to the community through the workplace or in the home, and then be told that the only "rights" you have acquired is the right to be "looked after" at Budget time. In all of this there is room to be angry, and I'd love to see the left a bit angry. But that's not enough either. There is room for an alternative vision - one that rejects the nanny state for a new ) concept of responsibilities, at individual and community level. And one that rejects the kindly old uncle state for a new concept of rights.

People who have rights are hard to exclude. People who don't have to depend on charity, or take their place in the Minister's queue. And don't tell me that everyone has equal rights in this society of ours. Most of the rights that most of us take for granted in Ireland derive from income and place. The endless conspiracy to persuade us that all public spending is bad is a conspiracy designed to ensure that people with income will keep as much as possible for disposal, and people without will be "looked after" when we can afford it.

I went last night to the social function that followed the merger decisions at the two party conferences. i Quinn as "my party leader", and to hear Ruairi opening his speech with a reference to "Mr President". And it was encouraging to see the obvious breaking-down of barriers that was going on all around the hall. They were important first steps.

But the real work involves substantiation. The party has adopted as a set of core values the notions of democracy, economic and social justice, equality, sustainability, pluralism, and community solidarity. Putting flesh on those bones will be a daunting task. And putting a bit of anger behind them is a crucial part of the mix.

But don't tell me the ground isn't there. It's said that all politics is of the centre now. If that's true, it's a counsel of despair - for people who are being passed by. The job is to represent them - and to build solidarity among those who are already included. It's been done before, and it's happening in other countries. Of course it can be done here.

My TV sparring partner, Frank Dunlop, in his delightfully provocative way, usually refers to this as a "typical Labour Party guff". But it's only guff if you're content with the status quo. If you're not, don't get mad - get stuck in.

Fergus Finlay was adviser to the former Labour Party leader, Mr Dick Spring.