WILL John Major bring his trusty soapbox to the Falls Road to explain the exact terms on which Sinn Fein will be admitted to all party talks? Does Tony Blair have plans to travel to east Belfast to explain how his government would handle the next steps in the peace process?
Dream on. It's a recurring grumble that Northern Ireland's voters have no way of influencing the composition of the British government which makes all the important decisions that affect their lives. As things stand, the peace process is unlikely to figure in any debate between Conservative and Labour leaders unless, God forbid, there is some terrible act of violence before polling day on May 1st.
And yet, we have just been shown how the election campaign could provide the next crucial step towards a lasting peace in the North. The blueprint has been unveiled, not in London or Dublin, but in a series of speeches made in the United States by leading politicians committed to the search for a just settlement. However unsure the touch in Dublin may have been from time to time, the Irish American strand of the pan nationalist front remains confident that the peace process can and must be saved.
The speeches made over the St Patrick's Day period by George Mitchell, Senator Edward Kennedy and Vice President Al Gore combined to point a new way forward. There was a difference of emphasis in what each man said, but what was striking was the elements which the speeches had in common. All three men condemned the ongoing violence in Northern Ireland and spoke of the urgent need for an IRA ceasefire.
If this were to happen, they agreed, it should be followed by Sinn Fein's admission without delay to the talks process. There could be no going back to the historical certainties of a past which had failed to deliver peace to Northern Ireland.
Senator Kennedy, who has no direct political responsibility for the peace process, clearly felt that it was right to be overtly critical of the British government and to demand a commitment that any new IRA ceasefire would be handled differently. Part of the point of his speech was, presumably, to steady the peace party within Sinn Fein even at the cost of angering the unionists.
The overall thrust of his argument was endorsed by Al Gore, who stressed his "absolute certainty and conviction" that "should the IRA declare a ceasefire, Sinn Fein would be allowed to participate in talks".
THESE speeches open an important window of opportunity to Sinn Fein. It has been suggested that neither Senator Kennedy nor George Mitchell speaks for President Clinton but both men have advised him closely on Northern Ireland and, from Mr Gore's remarks, it is clear that the President is still willing to invest considerable energy and hope in the search for peace.
It is extremely unlikely, as Senator Kennedy himself must know, that either John Major or Tony Blair will respond to his demand for a statement about Sinn Fein. The senator's remarks, however, his appeal for a more generous response to any new ceasefire and, above all, the endorsement of this view in Washington will not be lost on the leading players in London and Belfast.
What would transform the situation and focus attention on Northern Ireland in a way which rarely happens during a British general election campaign, would be for the IRA to call a ceasefire in direct response to Senator Kennedy's speech. That would put the issue of the multi party talks, how they have been stymied by the intransigence of which George Mitchell spoke so eloquently, on the agenda in Britain at a time when the airwaves are loud with political debate.
The announcement of a new ceasefire would also have a dramatic effect on the election campaign within Northern Ireland. It would open the way for some kind of pact between the SDLP and Sinn Fein. It would allow Gerry Adams to campaign, this time for real, on the slogan "Inclusive Talks Now".
At a cruder political level, it would ensure that an increased number of nationalist MPs was elected, probably seven and possibly eight. Even if Sinn Fein persisted in its policy of abstentionism, this would mean that parliamentary representation was more evenly distributed between the two communities.
Most important of all, though, a new ceasefire would challenge the unionist community to think hard about how it wants to move forward, what kind of political accommodation it is prepared to reach with its nationalist neighbours. It would present these questions at a time when it is being asked to vote for the men and women it wants to represent it in negotiations.
It is easy to feel pessimistic about this, to fear that in the course of an election campaign David Trimble and the Ulster Unionist Party would be forced to dance to the extremist tunes piped by the Rev Ian Paisley and Bob McCartney.
THIS need not happen. On several occasions during the Stormont talks, it has been the Ulster Unionists who have opted for the more conciliatory path and saved the whole process from collapse. In Washington, where the Ulster Unionists were given a good reception, it was interesting to see that Mr Trimble was careful not to dismiss the benign possibility of a new ceasefire.
The truth is that Mr Trimble faces a difficult political challenge. If Tony Blair's New Labour does as well as the polls predict, then the position of the Ulster Unionists in the new Westminster parliament would be quite different to what it has been in recent months. He and his colleagues would no longer command the kind of respectful attention from party whips to which they became accustomed in the dying days of John Major's administration. That would be no bad thing.
It may help them to concentrate on the problems that have to be resolved within Northern Ireland, and the long term interests of the people they represent, rather than running to London for another grand committee.
There are signs that many people within the unionist community, presented with the hopes of a renewed peace, would choose to reach a compromise settlement with their nationalist neighbours. The ongoing debate within the Orange Order between those who favour mediation and those who want confrontation is an example of this.
David Trimble knows that the Ulster Unionist Party is the natural political home of those who want to work through negotiation and that whatever his own instincts are on occasions like Drumcree, he has to accommodate their views.
The hope must be that the renewal of peace would create its own momentum and a determination in both communities not to let this second chance slip away. That in itself would greatly strengthen Sinn Fein's political case and its claim to be given parity of esteem in all negotiations. However, for this to happen, the first essential requirement is a new IRA ceasefire. Let us pray that it happens soon.