MIGHT Tony Blair take a pre election risk for peace? Quite properly, the question has been first directed to Mr Major. He is still, after all, the British Prime Minister. But given the near universal expectation of change in just six weeks time, it has also been addressed to his putative successor. It is no less valid, or demanding of answer, because it comes from across the Atlantic, and, for good measure, from a member of the Kennedy clan.
In this paper last Saturday, my colleague Joe Carroll quoted "White House backing" for Senator Edward Kennedys two pronged plan for the resumption of the IRA ceasefire and Sinn Fein's admission to the multi party talks when they resume in June. That seemed implicit in subsequent comments by Vice President Gore, although he took care to acknowledge the British government's authority to determine the issue.
Senator Kennedy called on Mr Major and Mr Blair "to make a clear statement that if the IRA restores its ceasefire, then Sinn Fein will be admitted to the peace talks when they resume on the date which is now scheduled, June 3rd, with no further preconditions".
Interestingly, the senator appeared to insert a prior condition of his own. The IRA, he said, had to restore its ceasefire "unequivocally, immediately and unconditionally". "Unconditionally" is the word which might intrigue the Whitehall mandarins, and the Labour leadership.
The Labour response was to echo Downing Street's familiar line, that the republicans would have to be judged by "word and deed". Comments by Michael Ancram, the Minister of State, appeared to confirm that Mr Major's government has no inclination to reopen the issues raised by last autumn's Hume/Adams proposals.
And on the basis that Labour's policy on the peace process has been, in the words of one Irish source, to maintain "two safe steps behind Mr Major", that would appear to be that.
So it will probably prove to be. The general consensus is that the election is now Mr Blair's to lose. The British media are bored by the Northern Ireland question and quite content that it should not feature as an election issue.
Having maintained the bipartisan position until now, there could be clear dangers for Mr Blair were he to suddenly move ahead of Mr Major. Having won the backing of the Sun, he might find himself pilloried by the Daily Mail and others for any willingness to play footsie with Mr Adams.
In the heat of the election battle, the Tories might find it possible to forget the little matter of their own protracted - and repeatedly denied - dialogue with the IRA.
For all the current talk about landslide victories, an unexpectedly tight result could leave the Labour leader in need of unionist friends. Moreover, the disposition of an incoming government would be to do nothing to upset the constitutional parties, and to consider the onus firmly on the IRA.
But some close observers fancy Senator Kennedy has actually handed Mr Blair the opportunity to cast himself as statesman, turn the heat on the IRA, and possibly win a pre election ceasefire in the process.
The senator may very well be wrong in his assessment of the republican disposition. But he clearly thinks the Provos want back in to the political process. Who would be the loser if Mr Blair set the date, with attendant strictures about the Mitchell principles and the issue of consent, and the republicans found further reason to continue their war?
Fantasy politics, most probably. But the issue of Northern Ireland is pressing, and looks set shortly to land on Mr Blair's Downing Street mat. The implication of various comments by Dr Mo Mowlam is that she has been less than convinced of the wisdom of the Conservative government's handling of the decommissioning issue.
If her wish is to be granted, the task of getting Sinn Fein into the process without losing the unionists will soon fall to her. Time enough to worry about that after the election, she may calculate.
But it is possible the North might yet become an election issue, for an increasingly grave tone has entered the Irish Government's comments on the controversy over the events of Bloody Sunday. The Tanaiste, Mr Spring, said yesterday that Dublin's promised dossier of fresh evidence about the killings should be "the first thing on the desk" of a new British government.
If the most recent allegations are verified, Mr Blair's response will be seen by nationalists in particular as an acid guide to his likely conduct in office. And even if Westminster's bipartisanship keeps both issues at bay until after May 1st, they threaten a swift intrusion on any honeymoon period Britain's, government in waiting might be anticipating.